TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, under Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the insurer's liability in respect of a goods vehicle was confined to a single aggregate sum of twenty thousand rupees for all claims arising out of one collision, or whether the limit applied separately to each person injured or killed in the same occurrence.
Analysis: The opening words of Section 95(2) and the expression "any one accident" were held to be capable of more than one meaning. Reading the provision in the setting of compulsory insurance against third-party risks, the Court adopted a claimant-centric construction. In that context, an accident is to be viewed from the standpoint of each person who suffers injury or death, not from the standpoint of the insurer or of the single transaction as a whole. If several persons are injured or killed in the same collision, each has met with an accident and each may found a separate claim, even though the injuries arose out of one occurrence. The words "in all" in clause (a) do not compel a contrary result when the provision is read as a whole and in light of its object.
Conclusion: The insurer's liability under Section 95(2)(a) was not confined to one aggregate limit for all claimants together; the statutory limit applied separately to each injured or deceased claimant, and the awards made by the High Court were upheld.
TaxTMI 
