Abatement and settlement Mediclaim and Compensation received under other Schemes under motor vehicles Act:-

1­ Original   claimant/injured   died   natural   death   during pendency of claim petition.­ whether his/her LRs are entitled for compassion? ­ Held ­Yes, as claim petition does not abate on the death of injured victim.

1991 GLR 352, 2009 (2) GLH 217 Surpal Sing Gohil. 2014

ACJ 930 (AP). 2014 ACJ 1621 (Mad) – Venkatesan v/s Kasthuri.  2014  ACJ  1754  (P&H),  2014  ACJ  1814  (Mad),

2015 ACJ 1452 (Bom)­

Proceedings under the M V Act does not abate on the death of the injured claimant – 2021 ACJ 2576 – O.I.Com. V/s. Kahlon

 

2­ Award in favour of dead person/claimant – award can not be passed in favour of dead person – award set aside with a direction to decide claim petition afresh.

2015 ACJ 1261 (Del).

 

3­      M V Act u/s 166 – Legal Representative Suits Act, 1855 u/s 1

– Indian Succession Act, 1925 u/s 306 – Claim for personal injury filed u/s 166 of the M V Act would abate if the inured dies for other reasons.­

2015 (2) CCC 512 (All) – Smt. Saroj Sharam v/s State of UP., 2017 ACJ 413 (Chh)

 

4­ Driver­Owner died before the reply could be filed in the claim petition – Tribunal deleted the said opponent as his LR have not been joined – Whether such order is sustainable?­ Held­ No. ­As Section 155 of the MV Act would apply and CPC dealing with abatement would not apply. ­ 2016 ACJ 1554

(HP).

5­ Maxim Actio personalis moritur cim persona – this maxim applies to personal injuries and PSS to deceased and not to loss to estate of the deceased – LR are entitled for continue with the claim petition.

2018 ACJ 1035 (Mad)

Settlement:-

1­ Claim petition withdrawn under the belief that as per the settlement all amount would be paid but same was not paid after the withdrawal of the claim petition ­ Whether the fresh claim petition is bared as per the principles of the res judicata? ­ Held­ No.

2013 ACJ 1361 (Raj).

Same principle would apply if claim petition preferred u/s 166 is withdrawn (even if without permission to file a petition u/s 163A) and fresh petition is filed u/s 163A of the M V Act. ­ 2016 ACJ 833 (P&H)

 

2                   Claimant sustained injuries and filed claim petition – same was partly allowed – claimant subsequently expired – his LR filed another claim petition claiming loss of dependency­ whether second petition is barred under the principle of res judicata?­ Held­ No.

2016 ACJ 790 (Kar)

 

3                   Claim petition preferred u/s 163­A has been dismissed – thereafter petition u/s 166 of the M V Act has been referred

- whether principle of Res Judicata would apply in this case? ­ Held­ Yes.

2016 ACJ 1343 (Bombay – Goa)

 

4                   Settlement­ Several claim petitions at two different places­ settlement arrived at place 'A'­ IC disputing its liability before the Tribunal at place 'B'­ whether sustainable­ Held­ No.­ Principle of estoppal u/s 115 of evidence act would apply. 2014 ACJ 1511 (Del).

 

Mediclaim and Compensation received under other Schemes:-

 

1­ Mediclaim – when certain amount is paid under   the mediclaim policy, claimant can claim the said amount in the claim petition. ­ Held­ No.

2013 ACJ 1437 (Mad), 2013 ACJ 2366 (Del), 2013 ACJ

2382 (Del), 2002 ACJ 1441 – Patricia Jean Mahajan,

2013 ACJ, 2014 ACJ 320 (Del), 2016 ACJ 2759 (Del)

 

2­ Mediclaim­ claimant is only entitled for the amount of premium paid by him and not the entire amount received by him under the Mediclaim. ­ 2013 ACJ 2609 (Del) N.I.Com. v/s R.K. Jain.

 

3­ Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – U/s 357A­ Victim Compensation Scheme­ payment received thereunder – whether that can be the base to deny compensation to the victim?­ Held­ No. ­ 2016 ACJ 2115 (Del)