Insurer not liable for injuries to negligent driver in the absence of personal accident insurance cover.

The appellant/injured filed a claim application following a motor vehicle accident involving his motorcycle (Reg. No. CG 04 LG 3041) and another motorcycle (Reg. No. CG 22/3812)

The Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, dismissed the claim on 06/05/2019

The Tribunal found that the appellant, while driving his motorcycle, dashed into the other vehicle, resulting in his own injuries and the death of the other driver

The appellant challenged the dismissal, contending that the Tribunal’s findings were perverse and contrary to the record

Whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim application based on the finding that the appellant was solely negligent

Whether the Insurance Company is liable for compensation in the absence of a personal accident cover in the appellant’s insurance policy

The Court primarily exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The governing legal principle is that a claimant who is the sole tortfeasor (the party responsible for the negligence) cannot claim compensation for their own wrong unless specifically covered by contract

an insurer is not liable to indemnify the driver for self-sustained injuries unless a "Personal Accident Cover" is explicitly included in the insurance policy

The Court examined the record and affirmed the Tribunal’s finding that the appellant was the negligent party who dashed into the motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 22/3812

It noted that the driver of the other motorcycle was not negligent, yet succumbed to injuries caused by the appellant

The Court reasoned that since the accident occurred due to the appellant's own fault, and the insurance policy for his vehicle (CG 04 LG 3041) lacked a personal accident cover, there was no legal or contractual basis to hold the Insurance Company liable

The Court found no merit in the appellant's argument that the lower court's findings were perverse, as the evidence clearly indicated the appellant’s sole responsibility for the collision

It held that the appellant is not entitled to compensation because he was the negligent driver and lacked the necessary personal accident insurance coverage

The parties were directed to bear their own costs