MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS RELATED TO TORTS AND SEC 140 OF MV ACT

 

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 IMPORTANT

JUDGMENTS RELATED TO TORTS AND SEC 140 OF MV ACT

TORTS

1.Whether PWD is liable to pay compensation when it

is proved that roads are not maintained properly held  yes. PWD is liable on the ground of principle of res ipsa loquitor and common law.

1987 ACJ 783 (SC)

2. U/s 163A, 166 & 158(6) of MV Act claim petition is

it necessary in all case for claimant to file claim petition? Held –no. Report under section 158(6) is enough to treat the same as claim petition.

Jai Prakash v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd,

reported in 2010 (2) GLR 1787 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1916

(BOM)

3 Medical negligence

Sterilization operation Failure of liability of State.

2013 ACJ 406 (HP)

SECTION 140 OF MV ACT

U/S 140 – No fault liability – claimant need not to

plea and establish negligence he is required to

prove that injuries sustained due to vehicular

accident.

2011 ACJ 1603 (Bombay)

But P & H High Court has held (2011 ACJ 2128)

In that case claimant pleaded that he was earning

Rs 7000 p/m. – in deposition, he deposed that he

was earning Rs 3000 p/m. Whether oral evidence

which is contrary to the pleadings could be accepted in absence of any other documentary evidence held–no.

2 NFL

application not filled along with main petitionTribunal

rejected the application filed later. HC confirmed the said order whether valid held : no. Claimant can file NFL u/s 140 at any time during pendency of main claim petition.

2010 (8) SCC 620.

3 No order of investment can be passed in the order

passed u/s 140 of the M. V. Act.

F.A. 1749 of 2012, dated 3/3/14 (Coram Jst.

Harsha Devani)

4 Constructive res judicata Whether order passed

u/s 140 of the Act, qua negligence of the driver is

binding to the tribunal as constructive res judicata, while deciding the claim petition u/s 166 of the Act? Held:Yes.

F.A. No. 264 of 2005 dated 15/02/2013, Minor

Siddharth Makranbhai. (2012 (2) GLH 465Siddik

U. Solanki) and 2016 ACJ 842 – NIA Com.

V/s patel Geetaben (FA No.3109 of 2007,

decided on 22.8.2014)

Judgment delivered in the case of 2012 (2) GLH 465Siddik U. Solanki is modified in First Appeal No.2103 of 2005 and allied matters, reported in 2015 STPL(Web) 1988 GUJ = 2015 ACC 630(Guj)= 2016(1) GLH 68 N.

I. I. Com v/s Kalabhai Maganbhai Koli(Coram Jst.

Akil Kuresi and Jst.Vipul M. Pancholi) and held that no other defence u/s 149(2) of the Act would be available to IC at the stage of Section 140 of the Act and, therefore,

Tribunal is not required to decide at the stage of Section 140 of the Act to decide defence raised u/s 149(2) of the Act.

5 U/s 140Whether amount paid u/s 140 of the can be

recovered in case if the main claim petition preferred u/s 166 of M V Act is dismissed or withdrawn subsequent to the passing an order u/s 140 of M V Act Held:No.

2014 ACJ 708 (Raj), 2015 ACJ 1815 (MP) – SC judgment in the case of O I Com. v/s Angad Kol, reported in 2009 ACJ 1411, para Nos. 4 to 8 and Eshwarappa v/s C. S. Gurushanthappa, reported in 2010 ACJ 2444 (SC), Indra Devi v/s Bagada Ram, reported in 2010 ACJ 2451 (SC) relied upon.

But see 2016 ACJ 295 (Del)

6 An application u/s 140 has to be decided as

expeditiously as possible – an order of hear the

same along with the main claim petition is bad.

2013 ACJ 1371 (Bom).

7Even if deceased was negligent in causing the

accident, his LR are entitled to get Rs.50,000/under

Section 140 of the M V Act.

2017 SCJ 2048 (Ker) – 2010 ACJ 2451 (SC) – Indra Devi

v/s Bagada Ram, followed.