Judgment related to hire and Reward owner/driver for production of D L under MV Act:

 Judgment related to hire and Reward owner/driver for

production of D L under MV Act:

 

1.Liability of IC in case where passengers were carried in private vehicle for hire or reward such passengers not being TPIC held not liable as neither the premium was paid for carriage of  passengers nor there was any permit to ply vehicle for hire or reward

2011 ACJ 1753 (HP)

2.Private vehicle breach of policy in FIR it is stated that vehicle was hired. IC disputed its liability relying on the word ‘hired’ in FIR eye witnesses deposed that vehicle was ‘borrowed’ from

the friend and denied that it was ‘hired’ whether IC is liable. Held; yes as IC has neither confronted the witnesses with the statement made by them in FIR nor examined the IO or RTO officer

2011 ACJ 1482 (SIK)

3. Death of passenger travelling in the Jeep IC disputed its liability on the ground that there was Act policy and deceased was traveling on hire and policy does not cover the risk of person whether sustainable? Held; no. IC adduced no evidence to prove that Jeep was used for hire and reward as per registration certificate All such persons come within the expression TP and since policy covers TP risk, IC is held liable

2011 ACJ 2638. But see 2015 ACJ 2098 (Bom – Aurangabad Bench).

4. Constitution of India Art. 136 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 149 Tractor plying on hire Labourer sitting on the mudguard of Tractor Falling down Getting crushed under the wheels Driver not

possessing a valid license Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs High Court summarily dismissing the appeal of Insurance Company Held : It was not a fit case for any interference under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India, however, it is open to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from owner by filing application before the Tribunal without filing a separate execution petition against the owner

2008 (2) GLH 393 (SC) –N.I.A Com v/s Darshan Devi

IC held not liable2013 ACJ 2108 (P & H), 2014 ACJ 1792 (MP)

4 – A. IC filed an application for issuance of recovery certificate returned by Tribunal with a direction that application has to be filed u/O.21 R.11 of CPC – Whether such order is sustainable? Held. No. IC is entitled to get recovery certificate as prescribed

u/s 174 of M V Act.

2016 ACJ 1652 (Mad)

5. Owner of the bus gave the same on hire to the Corporation along with policy bus dashed with two wheeler – whether IC can avoid its liability. Held ; No. when vehicle was given on hire with its existing policy, IC cannot avoid its liability.

2013 ACJ 10 (Mad)

 Review and Recalling:

1.Whether review is maintainable held – no – several SC judgments followed

2011 ACJ 2720, 2012 AAC 3007 (All)2011 SCW 2154, 1999 (1) TAC 449, 2013 ACJ 1130, 2013 ACJ 1892 (All), 2014 ACJ 2836 (All), 2015 ACJ 1333 (Mad), 2016 ACJ 517 (ALL), 2017 ACJ 1468 (MP), 2019 ACJ 3189 (Chh)

2 – Whether an award passed by the Tribunal under the wrong impression or by playing fraud can be recalled? Held ; Yes.

Further held that under this situation, IC can recover the disbursed amount from the owner of the vehicle.

2016 ACJ 1210 (Gau)

Travelling on rooftop/footboard of the bus, placed lauguage on the roof top:

1.  Travelling on roof top IC seeks to avoid its liability on that count Tribunal found deceased to be partly negligent and allowed claim petition partly whether sustainable. Held ; yes as IC failed to prove that deceased was not holding the valid

Tickets. 2011 ACJ 2156 (ALL)also see 2014 ACJ 17 (P&H), 2014 ACJ 2690 (MP)

2.  Travelling on the roof top whether it is a case of contributory negligence? Held ; No – as passengers are at the mercy of the bus operators.

2013 ACJ 1058, 2013 ACJ 2834.

3.  Negligence – Deceased was Travelling on the footboard –

Charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the vehicle Whether IC can claim exoneration under these circumstances – Held ; No.

2016 ACJ 2697 (Mad)

4.  Claimant sustained injuries due to the wooden article

placed on the roof top of the corporation bus – Whether driver of the bus can be held liable to pay compensation? Held ; No.

Only conductor and corporation/Owner of the vehicle can be held liable but the driver.

2016 ACJ 2860 (P&H)