https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280405 Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was construed in a claimant-centric manner for compulsory third-party insurance. The Court held that the expression "any one accident" can apply from the standpoint of each person injured or killed, so a single collision may give rise to separate claims by multiple victims. The words "in all" did not require one common ceiling for all claimants together when the provision was read as a whole and in light of its object. The insurer's liability was therefore held to apply separately to each injured or deceased claimant, and the High Court's awards were upheld. en-us Tue, 29 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 May 2019 16:48:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280405 Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was construed in a claimant-centric manner for compulsory third-party insurance. The Court held that the expression "any one accident" can apply from the standpoint of each person injured or killed, so a single collision may give rise to separate claims by multiple victims. The words "in all" did not require one common ceiling for all claimants together when the provision was read as a whole and in light of its object. The insurer's liability was therefore held to apply separately to each injured or deceased claimant, and the High Court's awards were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280405