Tyre burst not act of God but attributable to driver's negligence: Bombay High Court orders insurance co. to pay compensation

Tyre burst of a vehicle cannot be considered an act of God but is an act of human negligence attributable to the driver of the vehicle, the Bombay High Court recently ruled while directing an insurance company to pay compensation to the deceased victim’s family in an accident case [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mrunal Patwardhan & Ors.]..The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the New India Assurance Co. which claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle had not been negligent, and the tyre burst which had caused the accident was an act of God.Single-judge Justice SG Dige disagreed stating that tyre burst could be due to driving at high speed or due to under or over inflated tyres and it is the duty of the owner or the driver of the vehicle to check the tyre condition before the journey. "The bursting of tyre cannot be termed as an act of God. It is an act of human negligence. There are various reasons of bursting of tyre, i.e. High speed, under inflated or over inflated tyres, second hand tyres, temperature etc. The driver or owner of the vehicle has to check the condition of tyre before travelling, burst of tyre cannot be termed as natural Act, it is human negligence," the judge held..The accident happened when the deceased was travelling in a car with his friend when its tyre burst and the vehicle toppled. “It is significant to note that the insurance company had not examined the driver of offending car to prove the reason of bursting of tyre. So mere stating that burst of tyre is act of God cannot be a ground to exonerate the insurance company from paying compensation”, the bench held..The insurance company moved the High Court after the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Pune awarded an amount of ₹2,25,000 to each of the claimants. The company argued that the salary of the deceased which was taken into account by the MACT was on the higher side and various bhattas which cannot be considered as part of salary, were included to calculate the salary. The claimants, who were dependents of the victim, pointed out that no witnesses had been examined to prove the defense taken by the appellant. The Court did not find merit in this argument by the company, as the salary component which the company highlighted, included various deductions."It is settled law that while calculating the salary of deceased, income tax, professional tax has to be deducted and rest of the salary can be considered as salary of deceased. Hence, I do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that salary of deceased is considered on higher side," the Court said..Relying on an Apex Court order, Justice Dige concluded that each claimant was entitled to ₹1,90,000.It ordered the insurance company to transmit amount of ₹1,24,60,960 with an interest of 7.5% per annum from date of filing application till realization. However, the insurance company was also permitted to withdraw an amount of ₹35,000 which it considered as excess..[Read order]