In a tragic accident, a luxury bus travelling from Surendranagar to Nepal fell into a 200-metre deep ravine in the Dhadhing district in Nepal, resulting in the deaths of more than 12 passengers and injuries to over 15 others, with some passengers still missing. Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held only the travel agency responsible for compensating the victims. However, in response to over 24 appeals from the victims’ families, Justice Sandeep Bhatt of Gujarat High Court ruled that the insurance company, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company, is also responsible for providing compensation and ordered them to pay additional compensation.

A legal issue arose in the case regarding whether the insurance company was liable for compensation, given that the accident occurred outside India, in Nepal. The Surendranagar Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concluded that since the accident took place outside India’s borders, the insurance company was not liable, and only the travel agency was responsible for compensation. This decision led to the victims’ families filing more than 24 separate appeals in the Gujarat High Court challenging the tribunal’s ruling. They argued that the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal was insufficient and sought an increase.

Advocate Paresh M Darji, representing the victims, drew the High Court’s attention to several important issues. He argued that despite the accident occurring in Nepal, the insurance company should be held responsible for compensation alongside the travel agency. The luxury bus was insured, with premiums paid, and thus, the insurance company should bear some responsibility. The tribunal’s conclusion that the insurance company was not liable due to the accident occurring outside India lacked logic, since there is a treaty between India and Nepal, and no passport is required for travel between the two countries. Furthermore, a special permit was issued by the Nepalese authorities for entry, as recorded. 

Based on these circumstances, the High Court could not withhold the compensation due to geographical limitations, and the insurance company could not be exempted from its responsibility. The petitioner also referenced a similar case decided by the Punjab-Haryana High Court, which the Gujarat High Court considered.

Justice Sandeep Bhatt, taking into account the petitioner’s arguments, ruled that the compensation amount should be increased and directed that the insurance company, alongside the travel agency, must pay compensation with 9% interest to the victims’ families.

Also read :

Toll in Nepal bus mishap now 41, confirms Maha Minister

14 killed as Indian bus falls into river in Nepal