Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Sunday, July 21, 2013
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — In the absence of any evidence, the Court suo motu cannot deduct any amount towards income tax from the actual salary of the victim — There is a presumption that the employer under Section 192 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee’s salary — Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 192(1), 201(A).

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Determination of Compensation — 100% increase in the future income of the deceased, whether can be allowed? — Deceased was 28 ½ years old at the time of death — In normal course, he would have served the State Government minimum for about 30 years — Even if we do not take into consideration the future prospect of promotion which the deceased was otherwise entitled and the actual pay revisions taken effect from 1st January, 1996 and 1st January, 2006, it cannot be denied that the pay of the deceased would have doubled if he would continued in services of the State till the date of retirement — Hence, this was a fit case in which 100% increase in the future income of the deceased should have been allowed by the Tribunal and the High Court, which they failed to do.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Multiplier — As the deceased was 28 ½ years old at the time of death the multiplier of 17 is applied, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act? — In case the income of the victim is only from “salary”, the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee’s salary — In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC (Last Pay Certificate) to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee — However, there can be cases where the victim is not a salaried person i.e. his income is from sources other than salary, and the annual income falls within taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax is made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the victim has already paid income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from the income — Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 192(1), 201(A).

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act? — Held, generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Whether the salary receivable by claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction? — Held, no.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction? — Held, no — Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (1999) 1 SCC 90 relied.

 
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 147(1), First Proviso — Applicability of — View of the High Court that the first proviso to Section147(1) will cast a liability on the insurer to indemnify the owner in respect of the injury sustained by the employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment, held, is not correct — What is contemplated by proviso to Section 147 (1) is that the policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 147 — Whether having regard to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the bodily injury caused to the claimant who was travelling in a goods vehicle as a spare driver though he was employed as a driver in another vehicle owned by the owner of the vehicle under the policy of insurance — Held, no — The High Court was wrong in holding that the insurance company shall be liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and pay the compensation to the claimant as directed in the award by the Tribunal — Further held, keeping in view the decision in the case of Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1 & Challa Bharathamma (2004) 8 SCC 517 and the peculiar facts of this case, a direction could be issued to the insurance company to first satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by following the procedure as laid down in the case of Challa Bharathamma (2004) 8 SCC 517 — Appeal allowed.

 
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149(2) — Whether the insurer can contest a motor accident claim on merits, in particular, in regard to the quantum, in addition to the grounds mentioned in section 149(2) of the Act for avoiding liability under the policy of insurance? — Held, although the contention has considerable force but since it may come in conflict with the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors., - 2002 (7) SCC 456, matter referred to larger bench.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 and Section 170 — Whether an insurer can prefer an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded? — Held, although the contention has considerable force but since it may come in conflict with the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors., - 2002 (7) SCC 456, matter referred to larger bench.  

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149(2) — Insurer impleaded as a party — Effect — When an insurer is impleaded as a party – respondent to the claim petition, as contrasted from merely being a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act, its rights are significantly different — If the insurer is only a noticee, it can only raise such of those grounds as are permissible in law under section 149(2) — But if he is a party-respondent, it can raise, not only those grounds which are available under section 149(2), but also all other grounds that are available to a person against whom a claim is made — It therefore follows that if a claimant impleads the insurer as a party-respondent, for whatever reason, then as such respondent, the insurer will be entitled to urge all contentions and grounds which may be available to it.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149(2) and Section 170 — Where the insurer is a party- respondent, either on account of being impleaded as a party by the tribunal under section 170 or being impleaded as a party-respondent by the claimants in the claim petition voluntarily, it will be entitled to contest the matter by raising all grounds, without being restricted to the grounds available under section 149(2) of the Act.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 170 and Section 149(2) — Held, Section 170 of the Act does not contemplate an insurer making an application for impleadment — Nor does it contemplate the insurer, if he is already impleaded as a party respondent by the claimants, making any application seeking permission to contest the matter on merits — Section 170 proceeds on the assumption that a claim petition is filed by the claimants, or is registered suo moto by the tribunal, with only the owner and driver of the vehicle as the respondents — It also proceeds on the basis that in such a proceeding, a statutory notice would have been issued by the tribunal to the insurer so that the insurer may know about its future liability in the claim petition and also resist the claim, on any of the grounds mentioned in section 149(2) — Section 170 of the Act also assumes that the tribunal will hold an inquiry into the claim, where only the claimants and the owner and driver will be the parties — Section 170 provides that if during the course of such inquiry, the tribunal finds and satisfies itself that there is any collusion between the claimant and the owner/driver or where the owner/driver has failed to contest the claim, the tribunal may suo moto, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of the claim, who was till then only a notice, shall be treated as a party to the proceedings — The insurer so impleaded, without prejudice to the provisions of section 149(2), will have the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the driver/owner.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 r/w Section 170 and Section 149(2) — Motor accident — Claim petition — Held, the claim petition is maintainable against the owner and driver without impleading the insurer as a party — The Act does not require the claimants to implead the insurer as a party respondent — But it can however be made a party-respondent either by the claimants voluntarily in the claim petition or by the direction of the Tribunal under section 170 of the Act — Whatever be the reason or ground for the insurer being impleaded as a party, once it is a party-respondent, it can raise all contentions that are available to resist the claim.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149(2) — Statutory notice — Held, when a statutory notice is issued under section 149(2) by the tribunal, it is clear that such notice is issued not to implead the insurer as a party-respondent but merely to put it on notice that a claim has been made in regard to a policy issued by it and that it will have to bear the liability as and when an award is made in regard to such claim.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149(2) and Section 170 — Statutory notice  issued under section 149(2) by the tribunal — Insurer, held, cannot, as of right, require that it should be impleaded as a party-respondent.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Joint appeal by the owner of the vehicle (Insured) and Insurer, held, is maintainable — Decision in Chinnamma George vs. N. K. Raju – 2000 (4) SCC 130 to the extent it holds that a joint appeal is not maintainable, does not lay down the correct law.

 
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Computation of loss of future earning — Held, in the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability — This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways — Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country — The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned — But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect — The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one’s personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Held, compensation payable to a victim of motor accident who had suffered some serious permanent disability resulting from the loss of a limb etc., held, cannot be scaled down on the basis of a a hypothetical conjecture that notwithstanding the disability, the victim could make up for the loss of income by changing his vocation or by adopting another means of livelihood — The party advocating for a lower amount of compensation for that reason must plead and show before the Tribunal that the victim enjoyed some legal protection (as in the case of persons covered by The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) or in case of the vast multitude who earn their livelihood in the unorganized sector by leading cogent evidence that the victim had in fact changed his vocation or the means of his livelihood and by virtue of such change he was deriving a certain income.

 
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — View of the Tribunals that in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him, held, is not correct — The guidelines issued in the case of General Manger, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Others, AIR 1994 SC 1631, were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money — The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits.  

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Application seeking release of compensation amount — Held,  sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons.

 
Monday, January 02, 2012
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A — Compensation — Challenged on the ground that the claim under Section 163A can only be raised at the behest of a third party and as the deceased , in the present case, was related to the owner, therefore, no claim for compensation can be raised in an accident caused by him, under Section 163A of the Act — Held, although it is open to the Insurance Company to defeat the claim for compensation by establishing through reliable evidence that the deceased while riding the motorcycle on the fateful day, was an agent, employee or representative of the owner, however, petitioner-Insurance Company, in the present case, has failed to discharge the said onus — Insurance Company has failed to brought on record reliable evidence — Petition dismissed.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 144 r/w Section 163-A — Held, Section 144 of the Act would not override the mandate contained in Section 163A, for the simple reason that Section 144 provided for such effect over provisions “for the time being in force”, i.e., the provisions then existing, but Section 163A was not on the statute book at the time when Section 144 was incorporated therein — Therefore the provisions contained in Chapter X, would not have overriding effect, over Section 163A of the Act.  

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 140(3) — The burden of “pleading and establishing”, whether or not “wrongful act”, “neglect” or “default” was committed by the person (for or on whose behalf) compensation is claimed under Section 140, would not rest on the shoulders of the claimant — In other words the onus of proof of “wrongful act”, “neglect” or “default” is not on the claimant.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 140(4) — The claim of compensation under Section 140 of the Act cannot be defeated because of any of the “fault” grounds (“wrongful act”, “neglect” or “default”). 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 140 — The compensation claimed under Section 140 is governed by the “no fault” liability principle.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 140(4) and Section 163A — There is no equivalent of sub-section (4) of Section 140 in Section 163A of the Act — Whereas, under sub-section (4) of Section 140, there is a specific bar, whereby the concerned party (owner or insurance company) is precluded from defeating a claim raised under Section 140 of the Act, by “pleading and establishing”, “wrongful act”, “neglect” or “default”, there is no such or similar prohibiting clause in Section 163A of the Act — The additional negative bar, precluding the defence from defeating a claim for reasons of a “fault” (“wrongful act”, “neglect” or “default”), as has been expressly incorporated in Section 140 of the Act (through sub-section (4) thereof), having not been embodied in Section 163A of the Act, has to have a bearing on the interpretation of Section 163A of the Act — Legislature designedly included the negative clause through subsection (4) in Section 140, yet consciously did not include the same in the scheme of Section 163A of the Act — The legislature must have refrained from providing such a negative clause in Section 163A intentionally and purposefully — In fact, the presence of sub-section (4) in Section 140, and the absence of a similar provision in Section 163A, in our view, leaves no room for any doubt, that the only object of the Legislature in doing so was, that the legislature desired to afford liberty to the defence to defeat a claim for compensation raised under Section 163A of the Act, by pleading and establishing “wrongful act”, “neglect” or “default”.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A(2) r/w Section 140(3) — A perusal of Section 163(A) reveals that sub-section (2) thereof is in pari materia with sub-section (3) of Section 140 — In other words, just as in Section 140 of the Act, so also under Section 163A of the Act, it is not essential for a claimant seeking compensation, to “plead or establish”, that the accident out of which the claim arises suffers from “wrongful act” or “neglect” or “default” of the offending vehicle.  

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A — Negligence — First information report, post mortem certificate, scene mahazor, report of inspection of vehicle, inquest report and final report, held, cannot constitute proof of negligence at the hands of the rider.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A — In order to defeat the claim under Section 163-A, it is imperative for the Insurance Company to plead negligence, and to establish the same through cogent evidence.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A — In a claim raised under Section 163A of the Act, the claimants have neither to plead nor to establish negligence.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A — It is open to the owner or insurance company, as the case may be, to defeat a claim under Section 163A of the Act by pleading and establishing through cogent evidence a “fault” ground (“wrongful act” or “neglect” or “default”) 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A — Held, Section 163A of the Act is founded on the “fault” liability principle.

 
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Disability suffered by the claimant assessed at 75% — High Court, however, while assessing the compensation payable to the claimant took into account 50% disability while calculating the loss of income without any rhyme or reason — Held, this is a mistake committed by the High Court — It is no doubt true that, while making assessment, there is an element of guess work, but that guess work again must have reasonable nexus to the available material/evidence and the quantification made.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Disability certificate — Held, it is not that under all circumstances, the Court has to blindly accept the Disability Certificate produced by the claimant — The Court has the discretion to accept either totally or partially or reject the Certificate so produced and marked in the trial but, that, can be done only by assigning cogent and acceptable reasons.

 
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149 — Scope of — Held, sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it amply clear that once a certificate of insurance is issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147, then notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy, it shall pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured, payable thereunder, as if he was the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments — Sub-section (2), however, places a fetter on the payment of any sum by the insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, the insurer had notice of the proceedings in which the said judgment or award is given and an insurer to whom such notice is given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on the grounds enumerated therein involving a breach of a specified condition of the policy.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 147 read with 149 — Liability of the insurer — In order to fix the liability of the insurer, the provisions of Section 147 have to be read with Section 149 of the Act which deals with the duty of the insurer to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 147 and 146 — Held, Section 147 of the Act is an extension of the provisions of Section 146 and sets out the requirements of policies and the limit of their liability.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 read with Sections 147 and 149 — Motor Accident — Compensation — Passengers in excess of the number covered by the insurance policy were being carried in the vehicle — Whether insurance company is liable to pay compensation to passengers carried in excess of the permitted number? — Held, no — The liability of the insurer is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same — However, having regard to the provisions of Section 149(1), the liability to make payment in respect of persons not covered by the insurance policy continues as it would be entitled to recover the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle — Further held, so far as question of apportionment of the amounts to be paid is concerned, since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the persons in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the insurance company, ends of justice would be met if procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur’s case [(2004) 2 SCC 1] is applied.

 
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 84 — Held, Section 84 deals with general conditions attaching to all permits — These conditions are deemed to be incorporated in every permit — One of the general conditions is that the vehicle is, at all times, to be so maintained as to comply with the requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder — The authorities are empowered to cancel or suspend the permit on the breach of any of the general conditions specified in Section 84 or any other condition which is contained in the permit.

 
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Held, the assessment of damages and compensation takes into account a number of imponderables.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Multiplier — For the age group of 56-60 years the multiplier should be 8.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Multiplier — Where an unmarried young man dies, the average age of the parents will be taken for determining the multiplier and not the age of the deceased.

 
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 140 and 166 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154 — Whether delay in lodging the FIR of the accident could prove fatal so as toresult into dismissal of the Claim Petition filed by the claimant? — Held, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 140 and 166 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154 — Motor Accident — Delay in lodging FIR — Whether can be condoned? — Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned — In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.  

 
Monday, June 27, 2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation for Loss of Love and Affection, Consortium, Funeral Rites — In cases of fatal motor accidents, some amount must always be awarded by way of compensation for loss of love and affection and consortium.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Computation of income of the deceased — Held, deductions towards HRA, CCA, EPF and GIS should not be made in calculating the income of the deceased. 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Accident — Compensation — Computation of income of the deceased — The computer advance should not form a part of the monthly income.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Deduction for personal expenses — The Tribunal deducted 40% from the income of the deceased by way of personal expenses and the same was upheld by the High Court — Both courts, held, erred in doing the same in light of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., [(2009) 6 SCC 121] — As the deceased was married, a deduction of 1/3rd should be made to her income by way of personal expenses.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Addition in income due to future prospects — Addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years — Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., [(2009) 6 SCC 121] relied.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Computation of income of the deceased — Revision in pay scale — Deceased was aged 41 years — Addition of 30% by way of future prospects allowed.

 
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim petition — Rejected on ground that in the FIR which was lodged by the brother of victim, neither the number of the offending vehicle nor the name of the driver was mentioned — Tribunal and the High Court also refused to accept the presence of an eye witness (Dheeraj) as his name was not disclosed in the FIR by the brother of the victim — Held, when a person is seeing that his brother, being knocked down by a speeding vehicle, was suffering in pain and was in need of immediate medical attention, that person is obviously under a traumatic condition — His first attempt will be to take his brother to a hospital or to a doctor — It is but natural for such a person not to be conscious of the presence of any person in the vicinity especially when such person (Dheeraj) did not stop at the spot after the accident and gave a chase to the offending vehicle — Under such mental strain if the brother of the victim forgot to take down the number of the offending vehicle it was also not unnatural — It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial — The Court must keep this distinction in mind — Appeal allowed — The judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim petition — Assessment of compensation — Mutiplier — Deceased aged 29 at the time of accident — Tribunal erred by applying the multiplier of 16 — Multiplier of 17 should be applied.

 
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — General principles relating to compensation in injury cases — The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident — The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner — The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable — A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury — This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases — Stated.  

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Accident — Disability — Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Permanent disability — The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 — But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation — Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Section 2(i).

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Compensation — Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability — The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity — To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).  

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Compensation — Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability — The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability — Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to ‘hold an enquiry into the claim’ for determining the ‘just compensation’.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Compensation — Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability — If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb — If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor’s opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 168 and 169 — Held, Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to ‘hold an enquiry into the claim’ for determining the ‘just compensation’.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Disability certificate — Genuineness of — The Tribunal should act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give ‘ready to use’ disability certificates, without proper medical assessment — There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants — But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Disability certificate — Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for crossexamination with reference to the certificate — If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Compensation — Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability — All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Compensation — Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability — Evidence of doctor — Held, the doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability — The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Compensation — Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability — The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Compensation — Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability — Explained with illustrations.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Compensation — Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability — Deduction of one-third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses — Whether justified? — Held, no — In the case of an injured claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to claimant, (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants) — Therefore there is no need to deduct one-third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability — Compensation under the head of ‘loss of future earnings — Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity — It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Compensation — Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability — The Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability — After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity — Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps — The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life) — The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age — The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

 
Monday, February 21, 2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Multiplier — When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the II Column in the II Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Addition to income for future prospects — Rule of thumb evolved in Sarla Verma’s case [(2009) 6 SCC 121] that there should be no addition to income for future prospects where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years, held, is to be applied to those cases where there is no concrete evidence on record of definite rise in income due to future prospects.

 
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(30) and Section 50 — Sale of vehicle — Transfer of ownership — Neither the tranferor nor the transferee took any step for the change of name of the owner in the certificate of registration of the vehicle — Held, in view of this omission, the transferor must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act, even though under the civil law he ceased to be its owner after its sale.

 
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163A readwith Section 5 of Second Schedule — Assessment of compensation in cases relating to injuries — Held, the multiplier method is to be applied in cases of injuries also. 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — The appellant, a painter by profession, was 30 years old at the time of sustaining the injury in a road accident — The doctor (PW-2) who examined the appellant opined that the appellant has disability of 33% of right upper limb and 21% to left upper limb and 20% total disability of the whole body — In view of such disability, appellant cannot work as a painter and cannot do any other manual work also — In cross examination also PW-2 admitted that even if the appellant continues his old vocation as a painter, he has to do it with difficulty — Held, both the Tribunal and the High Court have failed to incorporate any thing by way of compensation in the category of ‘loss of future earnings’ in spite of recognizing the fact that there is disability of 33% in the right upper limb, 21% in the left upper limb and 20% in respect of the whole body, which does not allow the appellant to paint as he did earlier.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation in accident cases — While assessing compensation in accident cases, the High Court or the Tribunal must take a reasonably compassionate view of things.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Determination of compensation — It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the Tribunal and the Court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a ‘just compensation’ — It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza — At the same time the concept of ‘just compensation’ obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the Tribunals and Courts — This reasonableness on the part of the Tribunal and Court must be on a large peripheral field — Both the Courts and Tribunals in the matter of this exercise should be guided by principles of good conscience so that the ultimate result become just and equitable.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Computation of compensation — In the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages — At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation. 

 
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Multiplier in the cases falling under Section 166 of 1988 Act — Held, the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121, has, held that Davies [(1942) 1 All ER 657] method is applicable and has also set out a table showing different operative multipliers adopted and applied by Tribunals/Courts — The Apex Court in the above mentioned case has further held that multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie). 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 163A and 166, Second Schedule — Multiplier — The issue whether the multiplier specified in Second Schedule for the purposes of Section 163A of 1988 Act could be taken to be guide for computation of amount of compensation in a motor accident claim case falling under Section 166 of the 1988 Act is not yet authoritatively decided and is pending consideration before the larger bench.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Whether the High Court was in error in reducing by 1/3rd the compensation assessed after ascertainment of multiplicand capitalized with the multiplier of 16 — Held, High Court was clearly in error in reducing by 1/3rd the compensation assessed after ascertainment of multiplicand capitalized on a particular multiplier since the very method of ascertainment of multiplicand takes into consideration many factors of imponderables and the contingencies of the future — Once the multiplicand and multiplier are ascertained, the assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is arrived at by multiplying the two and no further deduction needs to be made towards uncertainties and other contingencies.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Assessment of compensation — Whether deduction towards uncertainties and other contingencies can be made once the multiplicand and multiplier are ascertained — Held, once the multiplicand and multiplier are ascertained, the assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is arrived at by multiplying the two and no further deduction needs to be made towards uncertainties and other contingencies.

 
Monday, August 09, 2010
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A and Sections 168 and 169 — Calim petition — Plea of the Insurance Company that the claim petition was not competent because the deceased was not a third party being the driver and owner of the vehicle and under the Act, 1988 and terms of the policy of the insurance, the Insurance Company is only required to indemnify the owner in case of third party loss — Dismissed by the Tribunal while holding claim petition maintainable — The High Court, however, in revision, set aside the order of the Claims Tribunal and held that claim petition was not maintainable — Appeal against — The case of the claimants appears to be that additional premium was paid by the insured to cover the risk of the driver of the vehicle and in the policy issued by the Insurance Company, in para 5, persons or classes of persons entitled to drive includes the insured and accordingly the Insurance Company is liable. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has denied its liability principally on the ground that deceased being owner of the vehicle is not a ‘third party’ — Held, the inquiry under Section 168 and the summary procedure that the Claims Tribunal has to follow do not contemplate the controversy arising out of claim application being decided in piecemeal — The Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues one way or the other in one go while deciding the claim application — The objection raised by the Insurance Company about maintainability of claim petition is intricately connected with its liability which in the facts and circumstances of the case is dependent on determination of the effect of the additional premium paid by the insured to cover the risk of the driver and other terms of the policy including terms of the policy contained in para 5 — Since all issues (points for determination) are required to be considered by the Claims Tribunal together in light of the evidence that may be let in by the parties and not in piecemeal, we do not think it proper to consider the rival contentions on merits at this stage — Suffice it to say that matter needs to be sent back to the Claims Tribunal — The appeal is partly allowed — The order dated October 1, 2002 passed by the High Court as well as the order dated August 7, 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon are set aside — The claim petition shall be decided by the Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties in accordance with law.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Held, Section 166 of the Act, 1988 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Section 165(1) may be made, inter alia, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased where death has resulted from the accident.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 169 — Held, Section 169 makes a provision that the Claims Tribunal shall follow the summary procedure subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 169(2) — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal except to the extent provided in sub-section (2) of Section 169 and the rules.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 169 — The whole object of summary procedure is to ensure that claim application is heard and decided by the Claims Tribunal expeditiously.   

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 and Section 169 — The inquiry under Section 168 and the summary procedure that the Claims Tribunal has to follow do not contemplate the controversy arising out of claim application being decided in piecemeal. The Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues one way or the other in one go while deciding the claim application.

 
Monday, July 19, 2010
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Whether deduction  towards income-tax is to be made so as to arrive at the net income of the deceased? — Held, where the annual income is in the taxable range, appropriate deduction should be made towards tax — In this case as the annual income has been worked out as Rs.2,48,292/-, appropriate deduction has to be made towards income-tax.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Income of the deceased — Principles relating to ‘addition to income’ towards future prospects — Held, this Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation– 2009 (6) SCC 121, has stated the principles relating to ‘addition to income’ towards future prospects — This Court held that wherever the deceased was below 40 years of age and had a permanent job, the actual salary (less tax) should be increased by 50% towards future prospects, to arrive at the monthly income — It also held that where the number of dependants of a deceased are in the range of 4 to 6, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 25% — It further held that in regard to persons aged 36 to 40 years, the appropriate multiplier should be 15.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Income of the deceased — Held, while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans etc., should not be excluded from the income — The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased.

 
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 72(1), Proviso — Stage carriage permit — What is prohibited by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 72 is granting of a permit in respect of any route or area not specified in the application — The said proviso does not prohibit curtailment in regard to portion of the route applied for, for any valid reason — In fact sub-section (1) specifically authorizes the Authority to grant the stage carriage permit with such modifications as it deems fit — Curtailment of a route would be a modification as contemplated under sub-section (1) — The position can be further clarified by an illustration.

      Illustration

 Where the application is made for grant of a permit in regard to a route A to D through points B and C. If the grant is made for the route A to C through B, excluding the last portion C to D, it will be a modification which is contemplated and provided for under sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act. On the other hand, if the grant is made in regard to route E to F or in regard to route A to E, the grant will be in regard to a route not specified in the application and consequently the permit will be violative of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 72(1) — Stage carriage permit — A careful reading of sub-section (1) of section 72 makes it clear that the Authority is not bound to grant a stage carriage permit as sought — The Authority could either grant the stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or refuse to grant such stage carriage permit or grant the stage carriage permit with such modifications as it deemed fit — The only restriction on the power of the Authority is that it could not grant a permit for a route not specified in the application.    

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 72(1) — Stage carriage permit — The Division Bench, in the present case, proceeded on the basis that when one of the termini is altered by the Authority, then the permit is not granted in respect of the route applied, and it would amount to granting a permit in respect of a route not specified in the application — Held,  interpretation by the High Court is without basis. 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 72(1) — Stage carriage permit — Whether the Authority has the power to grant stage carriage permits with modification by curtailing a part of the routes applied? — Held, the Authority has the power to grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit — So long as the reason for the modification is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable, the question of interfering with the order of the Authority does not arise. 

 
Monday, October 12, 2009
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 — Execution petition by Insurance Company — Tribunal, in the present case, held that the driver of the bus had not been possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident — Owner did not raise any contention that he has used due diligence in allowing the driver to drive the vehicle — Primary liability to pay the compensation was held to be that of the driver and owner of the bus in claim petition — Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount directing that the company may recover the same from driver and owner — Company made payments to the claimants — Whether the company  may recover the same amount from driver and owner by way of filing execution of said order of Tribunal? — Held, yes.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 — Claim petition — At the time of accident deceased was traveling in a bus which met with an accident — Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- by way of compensation to the LRs of deceased — Tribunal held that the driver of the bus had not been possessing a valid driving licence, therefore, primary liability to pay the compensation was held to be that of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, driver and owner of the bus — Appellant/ Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount directing that the company may recover the same from respondent Nos.3 and 4, driver and owner — Pursuant to the said observations, the appellant company made payments to the  claimants by depositing a sum of Rs.3,03,552/- by cheque — Execution petition — Appellant/ Insurance Company filed an execution petition against respondent Nos.3 and 4, driver and owner — The respondent No.3 by filing an objection to the said Execution Petition raised a question that the said Execution Petition was not maintainable and, in fact, a civil suit is required to be filed for recovery of the amount — Objection  was  sustained by  the  Executing Court — An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant — Dismissed by the High Court by holding that this cannot be said to be laying down a precedent  that in all cases where  the  liability  is  fixed on the Insurance Company, it  can always recover  the amount  from  the owner/driver — Further, High Court observed that it is still open to the owner to dispute the liability on the plea that he had taken all necessary steps to see that the driver had a licence and he had no means to find out that the same was fake — Appeal against — Held, whenever, thus, a direction has been issued by the Tribunal, it must be held to have been done in exercise of its inherent power — It would be travesty of justice, if  the  Insurance Company which  is  directed  to  pay  the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree — Impugned judgments  are set aside — Appeals are allowed — Executing Courts are directed to proceed with the execution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 — Obligations of owner of vehicle — An owner of a vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is legally obligated to get the vehicle insured — The rights and liabiltis of the parties to the contract of insurance  would be governed thereby  subject to  the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act — One of the conditions which would make the insurance company liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle in respect of payment of the amount  of compensation  in favour of a  claimant is that the driver of the vehicle must possess a valid driving licence. The owner has a duty to see that a vehicle is driven by a person having a valid driving license.

 
Friday, June 12, 2009
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim petition — While dealing with a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties; its function being to determine the amount of fair compensation in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — It is true that occurrence of an accident having regard to the provisions contained in Section 166 of the Act is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim petition but that, held, would not mean that despite evidence to the effect that death of the claimant’s predecessor had taken place by reason of an accident caused by a motor vehicle, the same would be ignored only on the basis of a post mortem report vis-à-vis the averments made in a claim petition.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not — Held, for the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act — Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants — The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability — The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.

 
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(10) read with clauses (14), (21), (28) & (47) and Section 3 — Driving Licence — There is a distinction between an effective licence granted for a ‘light motor vehicle’ and a ‘transport vehicle’ — Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a vehicle is “light motor vehicle”, but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act — If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle — New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal (2008) 1 SCC 696 relied.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 14 — Licence having been granted for a period of 20 years, a presumption, therefore, arises that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle — Had the driving licence had been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 140 — Held, provision of Section 140 does not operate with retrospective effect — R.L. Gupta vs. Jupitor General Insurance Co. 1990 (1) SCC 356 relied.

 
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Expression “compensation which appears to be just” — Held, Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining “the amount of compensation which appears to be just.” — However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act — Thus, the expression “which appears to the just” vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation — Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Scope of — Although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the person(s) liable to pay compensation.  

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Assessment of — Held, there is no uniform rule or formula for measuring the value of a human life — Though a special provision for assessment of compensation on structured formula basis for the purpose of a claim petition under Section 163A of the Act has been inserted in the Act with effect from 14th November, 1994, but no such formula has been laid down for determination of compensation in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, though there is no bar in taking the said schedule as a guiding factor while determining the just compensation by applying multiplier method — In fact, in Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. vs. K.I. Bindu & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 473, it has been observed that the second schedule to the Act may serve as a guide but cannot be used as an invariable ready reckoner.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Contention that the deceased had a potential of expanding his business, held, cannot be accepted as sufficient material to determine the future prospects of the deceased — No reliable evidence has been brought on record to show the future plan of the deceased regarding expansion or diversification of his business — Earnings in a business may increase with the buoyancy in business and at the same time may diminish with a recession in trade.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Deduction on account of personal expenses by the deceased — Held, there is no set formula which could be applied in every case to determine as to what should be the deduction on this account — The contention that deduction on that count cannot exceed one-third on the ground that there is some statutory recognition in the Second Schedule to the Act for such deduction, is untenable — The said deduction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case — Normally, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, onethird of the income in case he was married and one-half (50%) if he was a bachelor.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Deduction on account of personal expenses by the deceased — Held, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, onethird of the income in case he was married and one-half (50%) if he was a bachelor.    

 
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Held, to determine the question as to who contributed to the happening of the accident, it becomes relevant to ascertain who was driving his vehicle negligently and rashly and in case both were so doing who were more responsible for the accident and who of the two had the last opportunity to avoid the accident — In case the damages are to be apportioned, it must also be found that the plaintiff's fault was one of the causes of the damage and once that condition is fulfilled the damages have to be apportioned according to the apportioned share of the responsibility — If the negligence on the plaintiff's part has also contributed to damage this cannot be ignored in assessing the damages — He can be found guilty of contributory negligence if he ought to have foreseen that if he did not act as a reasonable, reasoned man, he might be hit himself and he must take into account the possibility of others being careless.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Difference between ‘composite negligence’ and ‘contributory negligence’ — In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles — But in respect of such an accident, if the claim is by one of the drivers himself for personal injuries, or by the legal heirs of one of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or by the owner of one of the vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, then the issue that arises is not about the composite negligence of all the drivers, but about the contributory negligence of the driver concerned.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Difference between ‘composite negligence’ and ‘contributory negligence’ — Held, ‘Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons — Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers — In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them — In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately — On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence — Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Principle of ‘composite negligence’ — Where the injured is himself partly liable for causing accident, the principle of `composite negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case.  

 
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154 — Accident — Claim petition — Allegations in F.I.R. — Whether can be taken into consideration ? — Held, ordinarily an allegation made in the first information would not be admissible in evidence per se but as the allegation made in the first information report had been made a part of the claim petition, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Tribunal and consequently the appellate courts would be entitled to look into the same.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and Sections 146, 147 & 149 — Accident — Compensation — Whether the insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation in relation to the accident occurred by use of the vehicle which was being driven by the son of the insured ? — Held, no.

 
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Determination of — Held, ordinarily, the amount of compensation should be determined having regard to the state of affairs as was existing on the date on which the cause of action arose — However, that does not mean that the subsequent event(s) can never be taken into consideration — But for the said purpose another application would not be maintainable subsequently.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Appellant, in the present case, held, is guilty of suppression of fact — With a view to obtain a just compensation, he should have placed all relevant materials on record — The benefits to which he was found to be entitled to pursuant to the order of retirement on medical invalidation were required to be disclosed before the Tribunal so as to enable it to arrive at a conclusion as regards the quantum of ‘just compensation’.

 
Monday, October 13, 2008
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Driving Licence — The fact that the licence was granted for a period of 20 years, held, clearly shows that driver of the vehicle, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle.

 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 10 — Possession of an effective licence is necessary in terms of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act.     

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ‘Light motor vehicle’ — Held, the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ would not include a light transport vehicle — National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Ors. [(2008) 1 SCALE 642] relied.  

 
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 and Section 170 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 33 — In an appeal preferred by the claimants in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, High Court reduced the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the appellants-claimants by the Tribunal from Rs.13,32,000/- to Rs.6,96,000/- by taking into consideration the contention raised by respondent No.3-Insurance Company that no documentary evidence having been produced to establish the income of the deceased, it should be reduced to 49,000/- for the period ending 31.3.1996 and Rs.53,000/- for the year 31.3.1997 — Held, the High Court could not have considered the contention raised on behalf of respondent No.3 which was not available to them in law — It was legally impermissible for the respondent No.3 to question a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, taking umbrage under Order 41 Order Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise — It could not have been permitted to do so — It is well settled that what cannot be permitted to be done directly, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly — Indisputably, no leave was obtained in terms of Section 170 of the Act — High Court committed a serious error by interfering with the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal, despite noticing that even no appeal has been preferred by the owner or driver of the vehicle as also respondent No.3.

 
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(41) and Sections 61 to 72 — Whether Chief Minister of a State has any role to play in a matter of grant of permit of a Stage Carriage Permit in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? — Held, no — In the matter of grant of permit to individual applicant, the State has no say — The Chief Minister or any authority, other than the statutory authority, therefore, could not entertain an application for grant of permit nor could issue any order thereupon — Even any authority under the Act, including the appellate authority cannot issue any direction, except when the matter comes up before it under the statute — Appeal allowed with costs.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Permit — A permit, if granted, confers a valuable right — An applicant must earn the same.

 
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(30) — Whether a financer would be an owner of a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? — Held, no.

 
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor — High Court, in the present case, therefore was not justified in holding that insurer had the liability to satisfy the award — Order of the High Court set aside — It is open to the claimant to recover the amount awarded from the owners of the offending vehicles — Appeal allowed.

 
Monday, February 04, 2008
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Liability of the insurance company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in respect of death of passengers travelling in goods carriage — Held, provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor — New India Insurance Co. vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. [(2000) 1 SCC 237], New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and Others [(2003) 2 SCC 223], National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur & Ors. [(2004) 2 SCC 1], National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma & Ors. [(2005) 12 SCC 243], New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedwati & Ors. [(2007) 3 SCALE 397] relied. 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ‘Goods carriage’ — Held, the Act does not contemplate that a goods carriage shall carry a large number of passengers with small percentage of goods as considerably the insurance policy covers the death or injuries either of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative.
 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 147 — Travelling with the goods itself does not entitle anyone to protection under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act — In the present case, it has not been proved that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner as the owner of the goods — Appeal dismissed.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle.

 
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Driving Licence — Vehicle which met with an accident was a ‘transport vehicle’ — Driver holding licence to ply only Light Motor Vehicles — Contention of the Insurance Company that since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven transport vehicle-Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation — Held, tenable — Appeals allowed — Ashok Gangadhar Maratha’s case (1999) 6 SCC 620 distinguished.

 
Monday, December 10, 2007
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 140, 173 and 168 — Whether an order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is an appealable one? — Held, yes — An order of the Tribunal awarding compensation under Section 140 of the Act is appealable under Section 173 as it amounts to an award under Section 173.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 158(6) — Expression 'as soon as' — Use of the expression 'as soon as', held, implies that there has to be promptitude in action. 

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 158(6) — Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, R.159 — The language used in sub-section (6) of Section 158 mandates the police officer to forward a copy of the report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and to the concerned insurance company "as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury is recorded or a report under Section 158 is completed by the police officer" — Directions issued to all the State Governments and the Union Territories to instruct all concerned police officers about the need to comply with the requirement of Section 158(6) keeping in view the requirement indicated in Rule 159 and in Form 54 — Periodical checking shall be done by the Inspector General of Police concerned to ensure that the requirements are being complied with — In case there is non-compliance, appropriate action shall be taken against the erring officials — The Department of Transport and Highway shall make periodical verification to ensure that action is being taken and in case of any deviation immediately bring the same to the notice of the concerned State Government/Union Territories so that necessary action can be taken against the concerned officials. 

 
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149 — Liability of Insurance Company in own damage cases — Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in such cases the logic i.e. let the insurer satisfy the award in the first instance and to recover the amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle afterwards does not apply — Held, tenable — Decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh 2004 (3) SCC 297 : 2004(2) S.L.J. 983 has no application to cases other than third party risks.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149 — Liability of Insurer — Own damage claim — Licence of driver found to be invalid/fake — Held, insurer cannot be directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and to recover the amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle afterwards — The conceptual difference between third party right and own damage cases has to be kept in view — Logic of fake license has to be considered differently in respect of third party and in respect of own damage claims — The statute is beneficial one qua the third party — But that benefit cannot be extended to the owner of the offending vehicle — Decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh 2004 (3) SCC 297 : 2004(2) S.L.J. 983 has no application to own damage cases.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Driving licence — Where originally the license was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149 — Purposive interpretation — The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173(2) — The restrictions relating to appeal in terms of Section 173 (2) does not apply to own damage cases.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Own damage cases — The decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh [2004 (3) SCC 297] has no application to own damage cases.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149 — Liability of Insurance Company in third party risks — In case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised to recover the same from the insured. 

 
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 r/w Section 140 — Accident — Compensation — Relatives who are legal heirs but are not dependants of the deceased, held, are entitled to file an application for compensation — Liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency. 

 
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 140 and 166 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 2(11) — Death in motor accident — Compensation — Contention that married daughter is not entitled to any compensation as she was not dependant upon the deceased (father) — Held, not tenable — Married daughter is entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Act.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 140 and 166 — The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency — The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 140 and 166 — Death in motor accident — Compensation — Where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act — Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Death in motor accident — Compensation to legal representative — A legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Death in motor accident — Compensation — Multiplier — The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest — In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Interest — As the interest rate is on the declined, the multiplier has to be consequently be raised.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Compensation — Multiplier — Highest multiplier, held, is 18 — Further held, the highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age

 
Monday, August 14, 2006
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 157 — Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 103-A — Non-intimation of transfer of ownership of the insured vehicle to the insurer — Effect — Held, liability of an insurer does not cease on transfer as far as the liability towards the third party is concerned — It is not the transfer of the vehicle but the accident which furnishes the cause of action before the Tribunal.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 147 and 157 — Whether a statutory insurance policy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, intended to cover the risk of life or damage to properties of third parties, would cover the risk of death or injury to gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle? — Held, no — Appeal allowed.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 147 and 157 — In the present case, one Rajinder Singh, who was riding as a pillion rider while the scooter was being driven by respondent no.1, died as a result of an accident — Contention of the appellant-insurance company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger — Held, tenable — Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

 
Monday, July 17, 2006
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Determinative factors — To determine the quantum of compensation, the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount, which the deceased was spending for the dependents, are the basic determinative factors.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Multiplier — The multiplier is applied not for the entire span of life of a person, but it is applied taking into consideration the imponderable in life, immediate availability of the amount to the dependents, the expectancy of the period of dependency of the claimants and so many other factors.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Future prospects — Mere assertion of the claimants that the deceased would have earned more than Rs.8,000/- Rs.10,000/- per month in the span of his life-time cannot be accepted as legitimate income unless all the relevant facts are proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence before the MACT — The claimants have to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Deceased, a young boy of 24 years old, was unmarried and the claimants were his father and mother — The dependency, held, has to be calculated on the basis that within two or three years the deceased would have married and raised family and the monthly allowance he was giving to his parents would have been cut down.

 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Head-on collision — When the vehicles had a head-on collision, the drivers of both the vehicles should be held responsible to have contributed equally to the accident.

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.