JUDGMENTS RELATED TO MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

 

          1­ Death of owner of offending vehicle prior to the date of        accident­ whether in such situation, IC is liable to pay compensation/­ Held­ Yes. ­ 2013 ACJ 1576

 

2­ Two Accident­ in first accident, deceased sustained serious injuries and while he was being taken to the hospital for treatment, second accident occurred­ both the vehicles held liable in the accident. ­ 2013 ACJ 896.

 

3­   M.V. Act­ duty of advocates­ Guidelines­ Good judgment ­ 2013 ACJ 474.

 

4­ U/s 166­ Efficacious disposal of MACPs with minimum loss of Judicial time­ procedure and guideline stated ­ 2015 ACJ 514 (P&H). 2017 ACJ 1682 (Bom)­ Anil Prabhakar Tandkalkar vs. State of Maharastra

 

5– Employee travelling in his company's vehicle, with the permission of employer – As per IMT 59, if extra premium is paid, IC can be held liable. ­ 2015 ACJ 2845 (Kar), 2017 ACJ 744 (Mad)

 

6­        Death of a dog in vehicular accident – whether claim petition for the death of a dog is maintainable?­ Held. No. ­ 2016 ACJ 665 (Raj)

 

7­ Theft of vehicle – owner lodged an FIR after 7 days of incident – IC repudiated claim on the ground that FIR is filed

after 48 hours – Whether sustainable?­ Held­ No. ­ Om Prakash v/s Reliance G.I. Com ­2017 ACJ 2747, 2016 ACJ 892 (P&H), 2022 ACJ 2022 (SC) ­ Jaina Construction v/s.

O.I. Com.

 

8­ Interest – IC was arrayed as party to claim petition at the later stage – Whether interest can be ordered to pay from the date on which IC is arrayed as party opponent? ­ Held­ No. ­ U/s 171 claimant is entitled for interest from the date of claim petition. ­ 2016 ACJ 1612 (HP)

 

9­        Whether a Fire Tender use at the Airport can be said to be the Motor Vehicle as defined u/s 2(28) of the M V Act, inspite of the fact that Circulars issued by the Government to the effect that same is not Motor Vehicle. Held Yes. ­ 2016 ACJ 1890 (Del).

 

10­ Contention that offending vehicle was being driven by the driver under the influence of the liquor/alcohol. Whether, IC can be exonerated under such eventuality?

Held­ No. Section 185 of the Act will come to the rescue of the IC only if it is proved that driver had consumed liquor/alcohol beyond the permissible limit, which not an offence. ­ 2016 ACJ 1783 (HP), 2016 ACJ 1952 (P&H)

 

11­ 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)

 

12­ Several steps in an elaborate Scheme have been enumerated to ensure that compensation is    deposited.   ­   2017   ACJ 253 (Mad)

 

13 – Nexus between injury and death – when qualified Doctor has deposed that deceased might have been traumatized due to injuries sustained in the accident – there is no reason to disbeleive it. ­ 2017 ACJ 663 (Kar), 2017 ACJ 2352 (Guj)

 

14­ Persons travelling in the Ambulance met with an accident­ IC disputed its liability on the ground that risk of such person/passenger is not covered – whether sustainable?­ Held­ No.

2017 ACJ 928 (Ker)

 

15 – Marine Policy – Transit Policy – Section 147 of M V Act – Section 79 of Marine Insurance Policy – Whether hirer of the goods whose goods were damaged in the accident can prefer a claim petition before the Tribunal as Third Party?

­Held­ No. it is not maintainable. ­ The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, (Writ Petition No.984 OF 2010) = 2016 (0) Supreme (Kar) 14.

 

16­ Case of Split multiplier – Deceased was aged about 58 years

– Court granted multiplier of 2 for loss of salary income and granted multiplier of 5 for the pension income ­ 2017

ACJ 1583 (HP), also see, where no split multiplier has been applied ­ 2017 ACJ 2391 (Cal)

Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to apply split multiplier in the case of R. Valli v/s. TNSTC, 2022 ACJ 956 (SC)

17­ Wild Life Protection Act – Zoo­ Tiger killed the man who visited zoo – Delhi incident – Whether Zoo Authority is liable to pay compensation – Held ­Yes. ­ 2017 ACJ 1881 (Del)

 

18­ Whether it is necessary to plea negligence in the claim petition­ Held No. ­ 2017 ACJ 1973 (HP)

 

19­ Res ipsa loquitur­ whether non examination of an eye witness is fatal for the claimants?­ Held­ No. ­ 2017 ACJ 1983 (Chh)

 

20 – Public Insurance Act, 1991 – Section 6 and 3(2) – Bus came in contact with live electricity wire – Claimants preferred claim petition before the Collector under the 1991 Act­ Whether claim petition under the MV Act maintainable?­ Held­ Yes, as there is no embargo. ­ 2017 ACJ 2071 (MP)

21­ Limitation Act 1963 – Art.82 and 113 – Suit for damages for death of person under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 – Limitation to file suit is 2 years u/A 82 not 3years u/A 113 from the date of accident. ­Damini v/s managing Director, 2017 ACJ 2865 (SC)

22­   Personal Accident Cover (PAC) – if the limit of liability is not specified, IC's liability is unlimited. ­ Vasuki v/s. Santhi, 2022 ACJ 244.

23­ Quantum of compensation ­ Mason ­ monthly income is assessed as Rs.15,000/­. Jst R M Chhaya and Mauna Bhatt J ­ Amjiba v/s. Lilaram Johrilal 2022 ACJ 1367 (Guj)