JUDGMENT RELATED TO PUBLIC PLACE, DISMISSAL FOR DEFALUT AND BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER MV ACT.

JUDGMENT RELATED TO PUBLIC PLACE, DISMISSAL FOR DEFALUT AND BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER MV ACT.

 

Public Place u/s 2 (34):

1.U/s 147(1) and 2 (34)public place and land abutting public road whether the land abutting public road to which public has free and easy access is a public place, irrespective of the fact that it stood recorded in the name of a private individual Held ; Yes. SC

decisions referred to

2012 ACJ 1175 (Ori), 2014 ACJ 576 (Kar), 2014

ACJ 1312 (Raj), 2016 ACJ 2310 (P&H), 2022 ACJ

726 (Ker)

2. Public place agriculture field is public place? Held Yes

2013 ACJ 30 (AP), 2016 ACJ 704 (Ker)

3.The premise of Indian Container Corporation is a public place – held – yes. 2018

ACJ 2238 (All)

4.Raj Bhavan is a public place – 2019 ACJ 2764.

5.Vehicle parked in the garage. It is public place –

2019 ACJ 2877.

6. Tea estate is the public place 2022

ACJ 2056 (Gau).

 Dismiss for Default:

1.Dismiss for Default DFD. Whether claim petition preferred under the MV Act can be dismissed for default after the framing the issues? Held ; No. Tribunal is required to decide the case on merits.

2012 ACJ 1261 (Guj) Bharatbhai Chaudhary v/s Malek Rafik, 2014 ACJ 1382 (Chh). 2019 ACJ 628 (Raj)

2.Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Jacob Thomas vs Pandian, dated 1st September, 2005, reported in 2006

ACJ 464, AIR 2006 Ker 77, 2006 (2) JCR 250, 2005 (4) KLT 545 has held that Tribunal has powers to dismiss the claim petition for

default.

3. Whether claimants are entitled to claim interest for the intervening period i.e. from the date of dismissal of the claim

petiti0n till its restoration? There are two views.

One Yes – as held in the case reported in 2016 ACJ 2778 (Mad)

Two No As held in the case reported in 2016 ACJ 2768 (Ori)

Burden of Proof:

1.U/s 149(2) (a) (ii) and 149 (4)driving licence policy willful breach burden of proof on whom Held on IC it is for the IC to prove that driver did not hold the DL to drive the class of vehicle or DL was fake and breach was conscious and willful on the part of insured to avoid its liability.

2012 ACJ 1268 (Del). Various SC decisions

referred to.

2. Burden of proof on IC– IC contended that driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid licence IC did not issued any notice to owner, driver to produce DL nor made any application to issue summons to RT officer2012 ACJ 1484 (MP)

3. Driving Licence Driver of the offending vehicle produced photo copy (xerox) of DL – DL is valid and no dispute with regard to its genuinity had been raised – Tribunal held that since driver of the

offending vehicle produced photo copy (xerox) of DL, it can be held that the driver of the offending vehicle has proved the licence – It has come on record that original DL is part of the record of the Criminal Trial – Under these circumstances, SC held

that the driver of the offending vehicle has proved the contents of the licence.

2016 ACJ 2157 (SC) – Rakesh Kumar v/s UII Com. Ltd.

4. Burden to prove that IP produced by claimant is fake is in IC though claim petition was pending for long time IC failed to produce relevant record like record containing the receipt of premium, proposal form register, name of agents etc. IC held liable.

2017 ACJ 2830 (Raj)