JUDGMENT RELATED TO MV ACT AND CPC

 

JUDGMENT RELATED TO MV ACT AND CPC

 

1 O 11 R 14whether claimant has right to seek direction from Tribunal to direct the other side  to produce necessary documents held – yes

2011 ACJ 1946 (AP)

2 O 41 R 33 whether the appellate court has powers to modify the award in absence of claimant held - yes

2011 ACJ 1570 (Guj)

3 Death of owner of vehicle application by claimant to join widow of owner objected by insurance company on the ground of limitation whether objections are maintainable? Held : no. scheme

Of act does not provide for the same

2011ACJ 1717

4 MV Act u/s 169 CPC – whether Tribunal can exercise

all powers of Civil Court without prejudice to the provisions of Section 169 of MV Act? –held yes. Tribunal can follow procedure laid down in CPC

2011 ACJ 2062 (DEL)

5 Insurance company sought to avoid its liability on the ground that though notice to driver and owner was issued to produce copy of DL but they did not produce and same amounts to breach of the terms of the IP whether IC is held liable held : yes Issuance of notice neither proves objections of IC nor draws

any adverse inference against insured

2012ACJ 1071985

ACJ 397 SC followed

6 Whether Tribunal can dismiss an application preferred u/O 26 Rule 4 and Order 16 Rule 19 for taking evidence by Court Commissioner? Held No

2012 ACJ 1623 (Chh)

7 Amendment in claim petition preferred u/s 163A whether can be allowed Held : Yes.

Contrary view taken in 2018 ACJ 2147 (Ker)

2012 ACJ 2809

8 O6 R17 – IC moved an application for impleading driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle whether, can be allowed if claimant does not want any relief against them? Held No.

2013 ACJ 1116, SC judgments followed.

9 Powers to take additional evidence when can be allowed - Guideline.

2013 ACJ 1399 (P&H)

10 Whether failure of the driver to produce licence u/O 12, R8

of CPC would be sufficient to draw an inference that driver did not possess a valid and effective licence.

2013 ACJ 2530 (Del).

11 Execution – Attachment of residential property/house whether

executing court can pass such order of attachment?  Held - Yes.

Special privilege provided under CPC is not applicable in

the case of enforcement of award.

2014 ACJ 1467 (P&H) – Prem Chand v/s Akashdeep

(K. Kannan. J)

12 CPC Order 11 Rule 14 Notice for production of document by IC the object of notice is to save time and expenses only, the cost or the expenses of such evidence could have been imposed on the owner or the driver of the vehicle and nothing more, if

in response to the notice, the licence was not produced, the Insurance Company ought to have called for the record of the R.T.O. or could have produced other evidence.

Karan Singh v/s Manoharlal, MP High Court,

reported in 1989(1) ACC 291 = 1989 ACJ 177 –

Para 9.

13 Tribunal is a ‘COURT’ and proceedings before it are judicial proceedings whether Evidence Act applies to MV Act? –held –yes

2011 ACJ 2228 (JAR).

14 DLIC moved an application for direction against owner/driver for production of DL owner/driver failed to produce DL – Will not absolve IC from its liability. IC has to prove its case by leading

evidence.

2015 ACJ 1125 (Ker).

15 Claims tribunal and civil courtJurisdiction– inter se dispute between registered owner and de facto owner – can only be decided by Tribunal.

2015 ACJ 1251 (Ker).

 

16 R.17 Amendment of claim petition – claimant sought amendment of plaint – entire nature of the claim petition qua negligence is sought to be amended on the basis of the deposition of the claimant – whether can be allowed? Held.No.

2018 ACJ 1569 (Ker)