judgments related to negligence under MV act

 

Judgments related to negligence under mv act

1.Negligence: Apex court observed that HC was not cognizant of the principle that in road accident

claim, strict principles of proof as required in criminal case are not attracted once eye witness who has taken the claimant to the road accident for treatment, immediately after the accident has deposed in favour of claimant, HC was not right in holding that accident is not proved and claimant is not entitled for any compensation. SC allowed claim petition of injured claimant

2011 ACJ 1613 (SC)

2 Confessional statement made by driver of the

offending vehicle, before the trial court whether,

in such situation, claimant is required to prove the

negligence of the offending vehicle held ; no

2011 ACJ 2548, 2011 ACJ 2568,

2APlead guilty – admissible – 2017 ACJ 1514 (Mad)

But see – Such confessional statement shall be not be treated as conclusive proof.

2008 ACJ 2553 (Mad), 2016 ACJ 1619 (Mad)

3 Composite negligence non joinder of joint tortfeasor accident occurred between two vehicles claimant impleaded only one vehicle effect

Of whether the tortfeasor impleaded can seek exclusion of liability on the ground that other tortfeasor has not been joined? Held ; No Third

party has a choice of action against any of the tortfeasor – but in such situation, Tribunal's is duty bound to either direct the claimant to join the other tortfeasor or pass the award against the impleaded tortfeasor, leaving it open for him to take independent action against other tortfeasor for apportionment and recovery.

2012 ACJ 1103 (P&H), 2015 ACJ 2698 (Guj),2015

ACJ 2690 (All), 2015 ACJ 1441 (SC) – Khenyei v/s

NIA Com. Ltd., 2016 ACJ 2335 (HP), 2017 ACJ 327

(Hyd)

4 Is it incumbent upon the claimants to prove

negligence of the offending vehicle? Held ; Yes if

they fail to do so, claim petition preferred u/s 166

cannot be allowed.

2012 ACJ 1305 (SC) Surendra Kumar Arora v/s Dr.

Manoj Bisla. 2016 ACJ 163 (Ass), 2018 ACJ 225

(HP)

2018 ACJ 663 (J&K)

When it is an admitted fact that accident occurred

due to sole negligence of the driver – IC can't

be held responsible to pay compensation as

tortfeasor can't be allowed to take benefit of

his own wrong.

5 Negligence contributory negligence claimant

travelling on rooftop such travelling by claimant is

negligent but unless negligent act contributes to the accident claimant cannot be held negligent.

2012 ACJ 1968, 2016 ACJ 1969 (AP), 2017 ACJ 1857

(HP), 2017 ACJ 2186 (HP)

5AClaimant travelling on the rooftop – when it is found that injured was travelling on the rooptop in

violation of Section 123 (2) of the M V Act IC

can't be held liable.

2017 ACJ 2775 (Cal)

6 Collision between Tanker and Jeeprash

and negligent driving of tanker owner and driver of jeep not joined whether claim petition can be dismissed on that ground? Held;No owner and driver of jeep not necessary party.

2012 AAC 2479(All)

7 Pedestrian under the influence of liquor hit by

truck from behind whether such pedestrian can he

held liable for such accident. Held: No.

2012 ACJ 2358 (MP), 2016 ACJ 2097 (Ker)

8 Negligence Finding with respect to negligence whether can be arrived at on the basis of filling of

FIR and Chargesheet? Held:No.

2012 AAC 2701 (Del) and 2012 AAC 2934 (MP)SC

judgments followed.

9 Contributory negligence Child. Child cannot be held negligent in the accident.

2013 ACJ 673, 2018 ACJ 2465 (P&H). But see 2015

ACJ 2124 (P&H).

10Negligence Conviction in the criminal Court whether findings of the Criminal Court is binding on the Claims Tribunal. Held ; No.

2013 ACJ 1042.

11Contributory Negligent Non possession of driving licence whether falls under it? Held – No.

2013 ACJ 1297 (Pat). 2019

ACJ 42 Saraswati

Palariya v/s. NI A Com.

12Negligence While reversing the vehicle Guideline.

2013 ACJ 1357 (Chh)

13Unmanned level crossing accident by Train whether Rail authority is liable to pay compensation. Held;Yes.

2013 ACJ 1653.

14Accident occurred without negligence of the driver. No other vehicle involved Accident occurred because truck rolled down on the slope Whether

IC is liable?

Held     ;Yes.

2013 ACJ 1993 (Chh)

15Negligence Helmet not wearing of deceased

A pillion rider, was not wearing helmet and IC took

objection that as deceased was not wearing held as per the traffic rules, he contributed in the accident and, therefore, IC may be exonerated whether tenable? Held ; No.

2013 ACJ 2038 (Del). 2014 ACJ 869 (P&H), 2017

ACJ 170 (Ker), 2017 ACJ 2696 (All), 2018 ACJ 2067

(P&H), 2021 ACJ 2744 (Mad), Mohammed Siddique v/s.

National Insurance Com, Civil Appeal 79 of 2020,

dated 08.01.2020, 2022 ACJ 1497 (Ker)

But also see, 2018 ACJ 110 (Mad) and 2019 ACJ 624

(Mad), wherein such claimant is held negligent to an extent of 15%.

16It is no doubt true that finding of Criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal but if claimant has

admitted his negligence in Criminal Proceeding, same is binding on the Tribunal.

2013 ACJ 2257 (Del)

17NegligenceContributory negligence driving under the influence of the Alcohol Guidelines

For assessment of negligence.

2013 ACJ 2349 (Chh), 2017 ACJ 774 (P&H)

17AContention that law does not require the owner of the vehicle to be vicariously liable for criminal act of his driver as contemplated u/s 185 of the M V Act

then IC as indemnifier cannot be made liable Whether this argument is sustainable/Held;No.

2019 ACJ 589 (Bom)

18Res judicate negligence when findings giving in the other case is not binding? Principles stated.

2013 ACJ 2283 (MP)

19163AWhen it is proved that claimant/deceased

himself was negligent in causing the accident IC

is not liable to pay compensation.

2013 ACJ 2586 (AP) Bajaj Allianz v/s Gaddam

Swami, 2013 ACJ 2622 (Ker) – O.I. Com. v/s P.P.

Nandanan

20Under the influence of liquor/alcohol Negligence guidelines for consideration.

2013 ACJ 2712 (SC) – Dulcina Fernandes v/s

Joaquim Xavier.

21Composite & contributory negligence Whether

Tribunal is required to decide quantum of negligence in a case where claimant is third partly. Held;No.

Further held that claim is not required to join both the tortfeasors.

2014 ACJ 704 (SC) (FB) Pawan Kumar v/s Harkishan

Dass Mohan.

22Contributory negligence Minor No specific evidence that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of minor Only because minor was not having licence to pay any vehicle and was

prohibited by law, it does not mean that minor

contributed in the accident. Therefore, in absence of cogent evident it cannot be held that it was a case of contributory negligence.

2014 ACJ 1012 (SC) – Meera Devi v/s HSRTC, 2022

ACJ 1441 (All)

22ATribunal held that accident occurred due to sole negligence of other vehicle and minor who was plying motorcycle was not negligent but the father of the minor was held negligent on the count that he was negligent in handing over the vehicle to the minor – whether sustainable? Held.

No.

2018 ACJ 982 (Guj)

23.  163AWhen it is proved that claimant/deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident. IC is not liable to pay compensation.

2013 ACJ 2586 (AP) Bajaj Allianz v/s Gaddam

Swami, 2013 ACJ 2622 (Ker) – O.I. Com. v/s P.P.

Nandanan

24. Pay and recover Accident by negligent driving of Minor Liability of Financier – order of pay and

recover only against owner/financier and not against minor 2014 ACJ 660 (Del), IC is held liable to pay and recover as same is liable under the

contractual liability. 2014 ACJ 2298 (Del), 2017

ACJ 2107 (Del) – Jawahar Singh v/s Bala ain 2011

ACJ 1677 (SC) followed See Note No.10 of page

no. 114)

25Contributory negligence Minor No specific evidence that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of minor Only because minor was not having licence to pay any vehicle and was

prohibited by law, it does not mean that minor

contributed in the accident. Therefore, in absence of cogent evident it cannot be held that it was a case of contributory negligence.

2014 ACJ 1012 (SC) – Meera Devi v/s HSRTC, 2016

ACJ 777 (All)

26Negligence Criminal Trial Acquittal whether order of criminal court is binding on the Tribunal. Held; No.

2014 ACJ 1174, 2016 ACJ 402 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 2140

P&H), 2018 ACJ 732 (Sik) – Case law discussed.

26AFinding of trail court whereby driver of offending vehicle is has been acquitted, cannot be the ground to dismiss the claim petition                 2016 ACJ 1671 (HP)

27. IC seeks to avoid it liability on the ground that ‘A’ was driving the vehicle. Claimant claimed that

vehicle was being driven by ‘B’IC sought reliance

on statement made u/s 161 of Cr.P.C and charge sheet same are not substantive piece of evidence even IC has failed to prove the contents of the same – no other evidence was produced by IC to point out that particular person was plying the vehicle IC held liable

2011 ACJ 2213 (ALL), 2016 ACJ 821 (P&H)

28Res ipsa loquitur – tyre burst – Whether driver of the offending vehicle can be held responsible?. Held  – Yes.

2016 ACJ 736 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 546 (HP)

29Res ipsa loquitur Land Slide whether in such

situation driver can be held responsible and can’t be treated such accident as Act of God? Held; yes.

2017 ACJ 918 (Sik)

30Whether non possession of DL would be sufficient to come to conclusion that driver had contributed in the accident? Held – No.

2018 ACJ 535 (SC) – Dinesh kumar J. v/s. NII Com.

31 – There is a distinction between the injury arising out of the accident and the injury arising out of the use of the vehicle.

Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited v/s. Joes Antony (Died) 2019 ACJ 689;

2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 4320;

32In absence of the rebuttal of evidence of the eye witness, no weightage can be given to the contents of the FIR. 2021

ACJ 2558 – N.I. Com. V/s.

Chamundeswari.

33Negligence accident between unknown truck and jeep, resulting into injury to the passenger in the jeep injured put blame on the unknown truck while giving statement before the police whereas,

the claim petition is preferred against the jeep inter alia alleging negligence of jeep driver whether sustainable? Held; No.

2022 ACJ 2105 (Bom) read

along with following judgment.

FIR. ordinarily averments made in the FIR would not be admissible as evidence per se but when claimant has produced it to prove his case, contents of such FIR admissible.

2014 ACJ 1075, 2017 ACJ 491 (Raj), 2017 (1) GLR

463 – NIACL vs. Giraben D. Patel.