1. The document discusses various judgements related to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It covers topics like tort liability, Section 140 on no fault liability, the Civil Procedure Code, Section 163A regarding compensation, jurisdiction of claims tribunals, limitation periods, negligence, calculation of compensation, driving licenses, and more.
2. It provides summaries of important judgements on each topic, outlining key rulings and positions taken by courts. The judgements help clarify legal positions and interpret various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and rules.
3. The document is a compilation of important judgements on the Motor Vehicles Act to serve as a reference guide for legal practitioners.
Motor Accident Claim Petitions (MACP) Reference Manual Updated upto March 2014 Legal
I suppose this Manual would be helpful for the Judges, Lawyers and litigants. All efforts are made to see that all points are covered. I have tried my level best to cover latest ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts. If you find any mistake, please let me know on the mail id given in this Manual.
Section 166(3) of the motor vehicles (amended) 2019 actLegal
CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTIONS 166(3) OF THE AMENDED MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.
Whether the amendment in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehciles Act which came into effect from 01.09.2019 would apply retrospectively or prospectively.
The document discusses key concepts and terminology related to civil procedure in India according to the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. It defines important legal terms like cause of action, judgement, decree, jurisdiction, res judicata, and discovery. It also outlines the various stages of civil proceedings, including institution of a suit, appearance of parties, remedies, and discovery processes.
The document outlines the stages of a criminal trial in a summons case, including the substance of the accusation being stated to the accused, examination of the accused where they can plead guilty, prosecution presenting evidence followed by the accused presenting evidence, and the order of conviction or acquittal being passed by the court, with acquittal also possible due to withdrawal of complaint, non-appearance of accused, or death of accused.
E DIGEST U/S 279, 337, 338,304 A, 304 II of India penal codesArjunRandhir2
E DIGEST ONU/S 279, 337, 338304 A, 304 II OFINDIAN PENAL CODE&OFFENCES RELATING TOM. V. ACT 1988.(SPECIALLY FOCUS ON ACCIDENTAL CASES)
Liabilities on civil as well criminal case
This document discusses the need for and various rules of interpretation when interpreting taxing statutes. It notes that while tax practitioners are not lawyers, they essentially practice law when interpreting tax statutes. The rules of interpretation help the judiciary determine legislative intent when a statute's meaning is unclear.
Some key rules discussed include the literal rule of interpreting the plain meaning of words used, harmonious construction of reading provisions together, beneficial construction resolving doubts in favor of taxpayers, and the use of external aids like legislative history to help understand purpose and context. Exceptions to rules like the literal rule are mentioned. Interpretation of specific types of provisions like charging, penal and relief provisions are also covered.
The stages of a criminal trial in a warrant case typically include:
1) The accused appears before a magistrate who frames the charges against them and explains the charges. The accused is given the option to plead guilty.
2) If the accused does not plead guilty, a trial occurs where the prosecution and accused present evidence and arguments.
3) After hearing both sides, the magistrate will pass an order of conviction or acquittal based on the evidence presented.
Motor Accident Claim Petitions (MACP) Reference Manual Updated upto March 2014 Legal
I suppose this Manual would be helpful for the Judges, Lawyers and litigants. All efforts are made to see that all points are covered. I have tried my level best to cover latest ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts. If you find any mistake, please let me know on the mail id given in this Manual.
Section 166(3) of the motor vehicles (amended) 2019 actLegal
CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTIONS 166(3) OF THE AMENDED MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.
Whether the amendment in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehciles Act which came into effect from 01.09.2019 would apply retrospectively or prospectively.
The document discusses key concepts and terminology related to civil procedure in India according to the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. It defines important legal terms like cause of action, judgement, decree, jurisdiction, res judicata, and discovery. It also outlines the various stages of civil proceedings, including institution of a suit, appearance of parties, remedies, and discovery processes.
The document outlines the stages of a criminal trial in a summons case, including the substance of the accusation being stated to the accused, examination of the accused where they can plead guilty, prosecution presenting evidence followed by the accused presenting evidence, and the order of conviction or acquittal being passed by the court, with acquittal also possible due to withdrawal of complaint, non-appearance of accused, or death of accused.
E DIGEST U/S 279, 337, 338,304 A, 304 II of India penal codesArjunRandhir2
E DIGEST ONU/S 279, 337, 338304 A, 304 II OFINDIAN PENAL CODE&OFFENCES RELATING TOM. V. ACT 1988.(SPECIALLY FOCUS ON ACCIDENTAL CASES)
Liabilities on civil as well criminal case
This document discusses the need for and various rules of interpretation when interpreting taxing statutes. It notes that while tax practitioners are not lawyers, they essentially practice law when interpreting tax statutes. The rules of interpretation help the judiciary determine legislative intent when a statute's meaning is unclear.
Some key rules discussed include the literal rule of interpreting the plain meaning of words used, harmonious construction of reading provisions together, beneficial construction resolving doubts in favor of taxpayers, and the use of external aids like legislative history to help understand purpose and context. Exceptions to rules like the literal rule are mentioned. Interpretation of specific types of provisions like charging, penal and relief provisions are also covered.
The stages of a criminal trial in a warrant case typically include:
1) The accused appears before a magistrate who frames the charges against them and explains the charges. The accused is given the option to plead guilty.
2) If the accused does not plead guilty, a trial occurs where the prosecution and accused present evidence and arguments.
3) After hearing both sides, the magistrate will pass an order of conviction or acquittal based on the evidence presented.
The Specific Relief of Act 1877
The Law of Limitation Act, 1908
ARNAB KUMAR DAS
Port City International University,
Chittagong, Bangladesh.
SID: LLB 00305037
The document discusses provisions related to staying the execution of a decree or order under Order 21 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It provides that an appellate court may order a stay of proceedings under a decree or execution of the decree. It also outlines the conditions that must be satisfied for a stay to be granted, including that there was no unreasonable delay in applying, substantial loss would result without a stay, and the applicant has provided security for performing the decree. The document also discusses related provisions around staying execution by appellate courts and executing courts.
Mr. Arvind has filed a bail application in the District Court of Allahabad. He is facing trial under Section 325 of the IPC for a crime allegedly committed on April 9, 2014. Mr. Arvind claims he was not involved in the crime and requests bail as he is the sole breadwinner for his elderly parents. He undertakes to abide by any conditions of bail and attend all further trial proceedings. The application requests the Court to grant bail to Mr. Arvind in connection with FIR No. 1109/2014.
A civil suit goes through several stages: a plaintiff files a suit and a summons is issued to the defendant. The defendant then either appears in court to file a written statement of their defense or does not appear, resulting in an ex-parte judgment against them. If the defendant appears, the court frames the issues in dispute and records evidence from both the plaintiff and defendant before hearing arguments from both parties and making a judgment.
The respondent argues that:
1) The principle of res judicata does not apply because the issues and reliefs sought in the first and second suits were different.
2) The appellant's claim for arrears is time-barred under the Limitation Act as more than 3 years have passed.
3) The respondent cannot be held liable for the previous owner's electricity dues because there was no agreement or terms to that effect.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
a Universal Doctrine, applied in civil proceedings.
Shah Muhammad
Lecturer,
University Law College Quetta Khojjak Road Quetta
Cantt
Admission Sec.17 to 23 Indian Evidence Act RohitPathak89
Sections 17-20 define admissions and the types of statements that can be considered admissions in legal proceedings. Section 17 provides a broad definition of an admission as any oral, written or electronic statement by a person involved in a case that suggests any inference to a relevant fact. Sections 18-20 outline specific situations where statements may be considered admissions, such as statements by parties to a case or their agents (Section 18), persons whose position must be proved against a party (Section 19), and statements to those referred to for information by a party (Section 20). Taken together, these sections provide the framework for what constitutes an admission as evidence in a legal case.
The document provides an overview of the key stages of a civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India. It discusses the following main stages:
1) Institution of a suit through filing of a plaint.
2) Issuance and service of summons to the defendant.
3) Filing of a written statement by the defendant.
4) Framing of issues by the court based on the plaint and written statement.
5) Trial through examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence by both parties.
6) Arguments from both sides.
7) Pronouncement of judgment by the court.
8) Drawing up of a decree based
The document summarizes the key provisions around temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India. It discusses the grounds for granting temporary injunctions under Rules 1 and 2 to maintain the status quo during legal proceedings. It also outlines the procedures under Rules 3 and 3A, consequences for disobedience under Rule 2A, discharge or variation of orders under Rule 4, and provisions for interim sale, detention of subject matter, immediate possession, and deposit in court under Rules 6 to 10. The purpose is to provide interim relief and protect suits from becoming infructuous pending final disposal.
Legitimacy, Legitimation and Adoption under Private International Lawcarolineelias239
For matters concerning children, and their succeeding rights over parental property is being questioned on the basis of legitimacy or illegitimacy. Legitimation is allowed to convert the status of illegitimacy ti legitimate. Adoption also assures the welfare of the children.
1. Ram Kumar has filed a bail application in connection with FIR No. 156/2018 registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempted murder.
2. He claims to be innocent and falsely implicated. He owns a textile business and has no criminal record.
3. Ram Kumar promises to abide by any bail conditions and attend court on all hearing dates, and seeks bail citing his innocence, responsibility, and that keeping him in custody serves no purpose.
Code of civil procedure 1908 reference, review, revisionDr. Vikas Khakare
This explains what is reference, review and revision. when and where it can be made. It also explains difference between reference, review and revision.
Sukre Suraj Ratanrao is a student of LL.B. 3rd year studying Civil Procedure Code. His topic is representative suits. A representative suit allows one or more persons to sue or be sued on behalf of a group of people with the same interest in the suit. This prevents numerous individual suits on the same matter. The objective is to efficiently resolve questions involving a large number of people in a single comprehensive trial rather than through multiple ordinary procedures. For a suit to be representative, the parties must be numerous, have the same interest, and permission or direction must be granted by the court with notice issued to represented parties.
The document summarizes the key aspects of summary procedure under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India. It explains that (1) summary procedure allows for expedited adjudication of money disputes, (2) it applies to courts designated by the High Court and certain classes of suits related to bills, notes, contracts and guarantees, and (3) it provides a streamlined process where the plaintiff can obtain a quick decree if the defendant does not respond in time or is not granted leave to defend by the court.
This document provides an overview of criminal trial procedures in Pakistan. It begins by defining what is meant by a "trial" and discusses the relevant legal provisions. It then outlines the key pre-trial steps that must be taken, including determining jurisdiction and place of trial, issues of juvenile status, and cognizance of offenses. The document also discusses processes for procuring accused attendance, supplying document copies, right to counsel, and procedures for joint complaint and police cases. Overall, the document serves as a reference guide to the stages and considerations involved in criminal trials under Pakistani law.
How to decide quantum of compensation in Motor Accident Cliam PetitionLegal
This document provides guidelines for determining compensation amounts in motor accident claims cases in India. It discusses how to calculate compensation in cases of fatal injuries and non-fatal injuries. For fatal injuries, it outlines the factors to consider such as age-based multipliers, future prospects additions, deductions for personal expenses, and other heads of damages. For non-fatal injuries, it discusses the different elements of compensation including medical expenses, loss of earnings, future medical costs, pain and suffering damages. It cites various court cases and principles from those cases to guide the determination of compensation quantum in motor accident claims petitions in India.
Motor Accident Claim Petition Reference Manual - March 2016Legal
The Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) Reference Maunal is updated upto March, 2016. This Reference Manual is based on the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court and High Courts and will be helpful to judges, lawyers, claimants, injured victims, insurance companies, drivers and owners involved in and connected with the motor accident claim petitiion (MACP). Topicwise narration of almost all points/issues involved in the MAC Petition.
The Specific Relief of Act 1877
The Law of Limitation Act, 1908
ARNAB KUMAR DAS
Port City International University,
Chittagong, Bangladesh.
SID: LLB 00305037
The document discusses provisions related to staying the execution of a decree or order under Order 21 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It provides that an appellate court may order a stay of proceedings under a decree or execution of the decree. It also outlines the conditions that must be satisfied for a stay to be granted, including that there was no unreasonable delay in applying, substantial loss would result without a stay, and the applicant has provided security for performing the decree. The document also discusses related provisions around staying execution by appellate courts and executing courts.
Mr. Arvind has filed a bail application in the District Court of Allahabad. He is facing trial under Section 325 of the IPC for a crime allegedly committed on April 9, 2014. Mr. Arvind claims he was not involved in the crime and requests bail as he is the sole breadwinner for his elderly parents. He undertakes to abide by any conditions of bail and attend all further trial proceedings. The application requests the Court to grant bail to Mr. Arvind in connection with FIR No. 1109/2014.
A civil suit goes through several stages: a plaintiff files a suit and a summons is issued to the defendant. The defendant then either appears in court to file a written statement of their defense or does not appear, resulting in an ex-parte judgment against them. If the defendant appears, the court frames the issues in dispute and records evidence from both the plaintiff and defendant before hearing arguments from both parties and making a judgment.
The respondent argues that:
1) The principle of res judicata does not apply because the issues and reliefs sought in the first and second suits were different.
2) The appellant's claim for arrears is time-barred under the Limitation Act as more than 3 years have passed.
3) The respondent cannot be held liable for the previous owner's electricity dues because there was no agreement or terms to that effect.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
a Universal Doctrine, applied in civil proceedings.
Shah Muhammad
Lecturer,
University Law College Quetta Khojjak Road Quetta
Cantt
Admission Sec.17 to 23 Indian Evidence Act RohitPathak89
Sections 17-20 define admissions and the types of statements that can be considered admissions in legal proceedings. Section 17 provides a broad definition of an admission as any oral, written or electronic statement by a person involved in a case that suggests any inference to a relevant fact. Sections 18-20 outline specific situations where statements may be considered admissions, such as statements by parties to a case or their agents (Section 18), persons whose position must be proved against a party (Section 19), and statements to those referred to for information by a party (Section 20). Taken together, these sections provide the framework for what constitutes an admission as evidence in a legal case.
The document provides an overview of the key stages of a civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India. It discusses the following main stages:
1) Institution of a suit through filing of a plaint.
2) Issuance and service of summons to the defendant.
3) Filing of a written statement by the defendant.
4) Framing of issues by the court based on the plaint and written statement.
5) Trial through examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence by both parties.
6) Arguments from both sides.
7) Pronouncement of judgment by the court.
8) Drawing up of a decree based
The document summarizes the key provisions around temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India. It discusses the grounds for granting temporary injunctions under Rules 1 and 2 to maintain the status quo during legal proceedings. It also outlines the procedures under Rules 3 and 3A, consequences for disobedience under Rule 2A, discharge or variation of orders under Rule 4, and provisions for interim sale, detention of subject matter, immediate possession, and deposit in court under Rules 6 to 10. The purpose is to provide interim relief and protect suits from becoming infructuous pending final disposal.
Legitimacy, Legitimation and Adoption under Private International Lawcarolineelias239
For matters concerning children, and their succeeding rights over parental property is being questioned on the basis of legitimacy or illegitimacy. Legitimation is allowed to convert the status of illegitimacy ti legitimate. Adoption also assures the welfare of the children.
1. Ram Kumar has filed a bail application in connection with FIR No. 156/2018 registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempted murder.
2. He claims to be innocent and falsely implicated. He owns a textile business and has no criminal record.
3. Ram Kumar promises to abide by any bail conditions and attend court on all hearing dates, and seeks bail citing his innocence, responsibility, and that keeping him in custody serves no purpose.
Code of civil procedure 1908 reference, review, revisionDr. Vikas Khakare
This explains what is reference, review and revision. when and where it can be made. It also explains difference between reference, review and revision.
Sukre Suraj Ratanrao is a student of LL.B. 3rd year studying Civil Procedure Code. His topic is representative suits. A representative suit allows one or more persons to sue or be sued on behalf of a group of people with the same interest in the suit. This prevents numerous individual suits on the same matter. The objective is to efficiently resolve questions involving a large number of people in a single comprehensive trial rather than through multiple ordinary procedures. For a suit to be representative, the parties must be numerous, have the same interest, and permission or direction must be granted by the court with notice issued to represented parties.
The document summarizes the key aspects of summary procedure under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India. It explains that (1) summary procedure allows for expedited adjudication of money disputes, (2) it applies to courts designated by the High Court and certain classes of suits related to bills, notes, contracts and guarantees, and (3) it provides a streamlined process where the plaintiff can obtain a quick decree if the defendant does not respond in time or is not granted leave to defend by the court.
This document provides an overview of criminal trial procedures in Pakistan. It begins by defining what is meant by a "trial" and discusses the relevant legal provisions. It then outlines the key pre-trial steps that must be taken, including determining jurisdiction and place of trial, issues of juvenile status, and cognizance of offenses. The document also discusses processes for procuring accused attendance, supplying document copies, right to counsel, and procedures for joint complaint and police cases. Overall, the document serves as a reference guide to the stages and considerations involved in criminal trials under Pakistani law.
How to decide quantum of compensation in Motor Accident Cliam PetitionLegal
This document provides guidelines for determining compensation amounts in motor accident claims cases in India. It discusses how to calculate compensation in cases of fatal injuries and non-fatal injuries. For fatal injuries, it outlines the factors to consider such as age-based multipliers, future prospects additions, deductions for personal expenses, and other heads of damages. For non-fatal injuries, it discusses the different elements of compensation including medical expenses, loss of earnings, future medical costs, pain and suffering damages. It cites various court cases and principles from those cases to guide the determination of compensation quantum in motor accident claims petitions in India.
Motor Accident Claim Petition Reference Manual - March 2016Legal
The Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) Reference Maunal is updated upto March, 2016. This Reference Manual is based on the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court and High Courts and will be helpful to judges, lawyers, claimants, injured victims, insurance companies, drivers and owners involved in and connected with the motor accident claim petitiion (MACP). Topicwise narration of almost all points/issues involved in the MAC Petition.
Compilation of Judgments wherein it is held that "Suit is not maintainable"Legal
Compilation of Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and High Courts, wherein it is held that "Suit not is maintainable". This document will be helpful for those who are looking for a complilation of judgments whrein it is held that "Suit not is maintainable" on the one ground or the other.
Booomark Version of MACP Reference Manual Updated upto March 2016 with bookmarkLegal
This document is prepared on the basis of the judgments delivered by Supreme Court and High Courts. Even support have been taken from the guidelines published by authority to assess the quantum of disability etc. This document would be helpful to one and all who want to know more about Motor Accident Claim Petition and Motor Vehicles Act.
Motor Accident Claim Petitions - MACP - Reference Manual updated upto April, ...Legal
This document is updated upto April, 2015. Few new judgments, details of rates of minimum wages applicable in State of Gujarat, topics concerning 'No fault Liability' u/s 140, registration certificate etc are added.
This document mainly concerning the cases where Insurance Company can be held liable and under which circumstances Insurance Company can be exonerated.
If you find any mistake in Motor Accident Claim Petition Reference Manual (MACP Reference Manual) kinndly let me knoe, I will be glade to correct it.
While deciding a claim petition, preferred under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, more often then not, Ld. Judges of
the Tribunals are vexed with such questions that it becomes difficult for
them to come to a certain conclusion, main reasons for such vexation are:
a)Non availability of judgments on certain points,
b)If judgments are available on some points, they run in
different directions,
c) Lack of reference book to decide, as to whether the
insurance policy is 'Act Policy' (Statutory Policy) or
'Comprehensive Policy' (Package Policy).
Judgments on section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Legal
1. The power of courts under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant interim relief in arbitration matters is subject to limitations. Courts can only grant interim relief to the same extent as in normal court proceedings and in a manner that does not interfere with the powers of arbitral tribunals.
2. Parties can apply for interim relief under Section 9 even before arbitral proceedings have formally commenced. However, courts must exercise caution in granting such relief so as not to frustrate the arbitration process.
3. Where parties have agreed on the place of arbitration in their contract, only courts in that jurisdiction have authority to entertain applications related to the arbitration agreement, including requests for interim
Points to be kept in mind while deciding sessions trialLegal
This document might provide some help to those who are dealing with Sessions Trial in Indian Courts. All care is taken to cover all points but if you find some mistake or some addition or deletion is required to me made, please inform me by e-mail:- hanifkaiz@yahoo.in
The document summarizes Indian laws around motor vehicle insurance claims from 2005-2012. It outlines that the Fatal Accidents Act of 1885 first established legal rights for accident victims and heirs to claim compensation. The Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 then made the laws more effective by mandating third-party insurance and establishing Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to handle cases. The Act specifies insurance coverage and limited defenses for insurance companies in claims, such as non-disclosure or unlicensed driving, as restricted further by Supreme Court rulings.
This document summarizes criminal and civil court procedures in India. It outlines the different types of criminal and civil courts, their jurisdictions, and powers. It also describes the key aspects of criminal procedure like FIR, investigation, arrest, and appeal. For civil procedures, it discusses topics like parties in a civil suit, notices, injunctions, judgments, appeals, and writ petitions that can be filed in high courts and the supreme court. It also provides an overview of government advocates and their roles in conducting government cases.
The document summarizes key aspects of criminal charges under the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure. It defines what a charge is and discusses the purpose, contents, and errors related to criminal charges. Specifically, it notes that a charge gives the accused precise notice of the accusations against them to prepare their defense. It must state the offense, law violated, and essential facts like time, place, and details of the alleged crime. Precisely framing the charge is important to ensure a fair trial and due process.
This document is a project paper submitted by Baby Ramya Muppirisetty to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for their Law of Crimes II course. It provides an introduction and overview of the practice and procedure of framing criminal charges under the Code of Criminal Procedure of India.
The paper discusses the meaning and purpose of framing charges. It outlines the requirements for a valid criminal charge and compares the difference between the charge and the trial process. It also examines the scope of inquiry during charge framing, effects of errors in charges, rules regarding alteration and joinder of multiple charges. The document provides legal definitions and references court cases to support its analysis of the topic.
An Introduction to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Nilendra Kumar
The familiarization to the Motor Vehicles Act is of relevance to diverse segments of the community. The existing law addresses different aspects of the statute. The presentation is an attempt to introduce the law.
The document summarizes a 2012 court case between Apple and Samsung regarding alleged design infringement of Samsung's Galaxy tablet designs on Apple's registered iPad design. In the case, a British judge ruled that Samsung's Galaxy tablet designs did not infringe on Apple's design registration. Specifically:
1) While the front of the Galaxy tablets and iPad shared similarities like a rectangular screen with rounded corners, Samsung's tablets had a different overall impression due to their thinner design and details on the back.
2) When considering prior art and design freedom constraints, the front similarities were not unique enough to find infringement.
3) The judge concluded the informed user would view the Galaxy tablets as thinner members of the design family that include
This document discusses effective approaches to teaching legal ethics in law schools. It begins by highlighting the link between legal education and ethical lawyering, noting that some scholars argue legal education has contributed to a decline in ethics in the legal profession. It then examines why legal ethics courses are often treated as secondary in importance. The document also considers arguments for why ethics cannot or should not be taught. Finally, it outlines best practices for teaching ethics pervasively throughout the curriculum, using examples from UCLA's infusion approach.
This very short document contains no substantive information beyond a greeting and expression of hope that the recipient will enjoy more cartoons. It consists of only two sentences with no details provided about any cartoons.
This document summarizes regulations surrounding the listing of securitized debt instruments in India. It discusses how 2007 amendments to the Securities Contracts Regulation Act allowed securitized debt instruments to be publicly traded by defining them as securities. In response, SEBI introduced regulations in 2008 governing public offerings and listings of securitized debt instruments. The regulations establish rules for special purpose entities issuing the instruments and require disclosures. SEBI also released a listing agreement for these instruments in 2011 to increase transparency and secondary market liquidity. Issues remaining include lack of effective foreclosure laws and ambiguity in the tax treatment of SPV trusts.
This document provides a 3-part handbook for driver qualification and hazard perception. Part 1 provides background information on crash patterns, how the Driver Qualification Test works, and special needs options. Part 2 covers understanding and managing driving risk, including topics like alcohol, drugs, fatigue, distractions, and risk factors. Part 3 reviews hazard perception skills like maintaining safe distances, speed control, gap selection, scanning techniques. The goal is to help drivers understand risks and develop skills to promote safer driving.
This document provides a summary of 20 legal cases related to the rejection of plaints under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Some of the key principles laid down in the cases include:
1) A plaint can be rejected if it is not maintainable, does not disclose a cause of action, or is manifestly meritless or vexatious.
2) The question of court fees payable is decided based on the allegations in the plaint, not subsequent evidence or statements.
3) The plaintiff is generally free to value the relief sought in their own estimation for determining jurisdiction and court fees.
4) A plaint cannot be rejected solely on the basis of
TDC-15-S-01 Introduction to Driving (Version 2).pdfarthurmalemit
The document provides an overview of driving regulations in the Philippines. It discusses the evolution of land transportation and agencies that regulate it like the LTO. Key points covered include requirements for vehicle registration like plate numbers and fees. It also outlines license requirements, classifications like non-professional and professional drivers, and penalty points systems for traffic violations.
Cause List dated 14-09-2020 by Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Case No. MA 1446/2020 - OM PRAKASH . AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. is listed on 14-09-20 in Court No. VC 4 as Item No. 9 subject to order for the day
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI] [COURT NO: 04] [CL.NO. : 9]
This document contains an application form for a permanent driving license. It requests information such as the applicant's name, address, date of birth, education level, identification marks, optional medical details, previous licenses held, convictions, tests taken, attached documents including photos and certificates. The applicant declares that the information provided is true and pays the application fee. The form also contains a section for a certificate of driving competence test results.
Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot with ladies.Omaxe Reviews get lot of hits on omaxe reviews official omaxe reviews introducing omaxe reviews and Mr. Anil Kumar get set go. Omaxe Reviews at next month but all over get hot.
This order from the Supreme Court of India concerns two appeals related to nine foreigners who had entered India with valid passports and visas but were facing restrictions. The Court granted leave for the appeals. It noted that exit permits had been issued for the appellants to leave for their home countries shortly, making the appeals infructuous except for the condition that they not visit India for the next ten years. The Court clarified that any future visa applications would be considered on their merits without influence from the previous judgment. It also left open the issue of whether a prior High Court decision would apply to foreigners entering India with valid documents. The appeals were then disposed of.
This document is an application form for a new driver's license in India. It requests information such as the applicant's name, date of birth, address, citizenship status, and education level. It also asks for identification marks and blood group. The applicant must select the class of vehicle and provide details of any previous licenses or convictions. Supporting documents like address proof must be enclosed. For minor applicants, consent is required from a parent or guardian. The licensing authority will then process the application and decide if a learner's license or driver's license can be issued.
SARRAF_EXPORT vs. ITO, Ward -2, Churu JODH-2012suresh ojha
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was hearing appeals from M/s. Sarraf Export for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 regarding the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act for an amount credited as Duty Entitlement Pass Book. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's withdrawal of the deduction, which was initially allowed, under Section 154 was not valid as the issue was debatable given an amendment to Section 28 and relevant case law. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and reversed the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The document summarizes important judgments and orders from the Delhi High Court regarding motor vehicle accident claims and their implementation. Key points:
1. The Court directed Delhi Police to file Accident Information Reports with Claims Tribunals within 30 days of accidents along with documents like FIR, medical reports. This expedites insurance payouts and victim compensation.
2. For pending cases from 1994-2009, Police must file Reports for listed cases and ensure witnesses/drivers attend hearings.
3. Insurance companies must investigate claims within timelines, determine payouts, and deposit admitted amounts with Tribunals to ensure timely victim compensation.
4. A special 120-day claims settlement scheme was established for accidents from
The document is a legal opinion letter from SSRJ Legal Consultants responding to a query from the Automotive Parts Merchants Association regarding a letter from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways about crash guards/bull bars on motor vehicles.
The legal consultant provides the following advice: 1) Verify the authenticity of the letter through an RTI request since it was not found on the ministry's website. 2) Even if authentic, the letter is just a recommendation and not a ban or notification. 3) Fitment of crash guards is not a violation of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4) The letter does not impose any penalty if verified and found to be genuine.
This document discusses two applications seeking to set aside a Deputy Registrar's order amending a judgment. The judgment was in a case where a bank sued guarantors of a defaulting company's loan. The DR had allowed amendment to specify that two defendants were jointly and severally liable based on consent by their lawyers. The applications argued the DR lacked jurisdiction to amend a judge's judgment and there was undue delay in the amendment application. The court considered whether the applicable procedural rules allowed the DR to make such an amendment order.
court orders will be applicable in similar cases കോടതി ഉത്തരവുകൾ സമാന കേസുകൾക്കും ബാധകം എന്ന സുപ്രീം കോടതി ഉത്തരവ് contact your land consultant today. We Solve your land problems in Kerala - we provide Legal support, assistance and monitoring of your complaints in Bhoomi tharam mattom, pattayam , thandapper , pokkuvaravu , land tax , building tax , digital survey , resurvey ,klc , puramboke , pathway disputes, fair value , data bank , issues . James Joseph Adhikarathil , Former Deputy collector Alappuzha 94447464502. Service available all over Kerala
SC issues order banning motorbikes from plying on Pakistan's highwaysGibran Ashraf
In some bad news for bikers who wished to commute between cities on the motorways, the apex court on Friday issued a verdict barring motorbikes from plying on the highway.
Read the story here: https://www.samaaenglish.tv/news/40021744/pakistan-bad-news-sc-bars-bikes-from-plying-on-countrys-motorways
The document appears to be a memorandum submitted to the High Court of Judicature at Madras regarding a criminal original petition. It summarizes objections to a counter filed by the 8th respondent (Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore). It denies statements made in the counter and argues the case involves corruption and loss of government funds that were not properly recovered or investigated against multiple officials and contractors across three districts. It requests the court to direct a full investigation and recovery of lost funds. The memorandum is submitted along with additional documents in support of the petitioners arguments against the 8th respondent's counter.
The document summarizes key aspects of road accident compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 in India. It outlines that the Act covers all aspects of road transport and ensures public welfare after accidents. It establishes Motor Accident Claim Tribunals to ensure speedy justice in accident cases. Claimants can file for compensation for death, injury, or property loss resulting from a motor vehicle accident. The procedure allows claims to be filed where the claimant, vehicle owner resides, or where the accident occurred.
Similar to Motor Accident Claim Petition Judgments (16)
Leave to appeal under section 372 of the cr pcLegal
Section 372 of the CrPC. Leave to appeal by the Victim. There are some confusion with respect to forum before which an acquittal appeal would lie (case instituted on the private complaint)
Section 34 of the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act. Scope of interference. Po...Legal
Scope of Interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Under which circumstances Court can interfere with an award passed by the arbitral tribunal.
Pre institution mediation and settlement - Section 12A of the Commercial Cour...Legal
This document summarizes Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act regarding pre-institution mediation and settlement. Key points include:
- A commercial suit that does not seek urgent interim relief must first exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation.
- The Central Government authorizes authorities under the Legal Services Authorities Act to handle pre-institution mediation. Mediation must be completed within 3 months but can be extended by 2 months if parties consent.
- If parties settle in mediation, the settlement is reduced to writing and has the same effect as an arbitral award on agreed terms.
- Only if a suit seeks urgent interim relief can the plaintiff avoid pre-institution mediation. The phrase
Section 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the arbitration act.role of the court under ...Legal
Sections 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act deal with challenges to arbitrators, the competence of arbitral tribunals, and interim measures. Section 12 allows parties to challenge an arbitrator's appointment based on reasonable doubts about independence or impartiality. Section 13 sets out the challenge procedure, requiring parties to notify the tribunal within 15 days. If a challenge is denied, the tribunal will continue proceedings. Section 14 covers replacing arbitrators who are unable to serve or withdraw. Section 16 gives arbitral tribunals competence to rule on their own jurisdiction. Section 17 allows tribunals to issue interim measures for preservation of property or evidence.
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation ActLegal
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires an arbitral tribunal to render an award within 12 months (which may be extended for further period of six months with the consent of the parties) from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference or from the date of completion of pleadings under newly introduced Section 23(4) of the Act.
After reading pre-amended Section 29A and amended Section 29A of the Act certain questions may arise. They are...
What was the need for bringing in Section 29A of the Act?
Section 29A(5) of the Act provides that the extension of period referred to in Section 29A(4) of the Act may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court. Whether this Court is the Court as defined u/s 2(1)(e) of the Act or a Court which has appointed arbitrator u/s 11 of the Act?
Whether the amendment of 2019 has the retrospective effect to those arbitral proceedings which have commenced after 23rd October, 2015 and award thereof has not been made with the time period prescribed u/s 29A of the Act?
When the award is not rendered within the time period prescribed u/s 29A(1) or the extended period specified u/s 29A(3) of the Act, the arbitral tribunal loses its mandate and the parties are mandatorily required to approach the Court for extension of the time limit beyond 12 months or 18 months, as the case may be?
If the mandate of the arbitral tribunal is terminated in accordance with Section 29A(4) of the Act, the arbitrator becomes functus officio or de jure/de facto (u/s 14 of the Act) unable to perform his function or the aggrieved party has to move an application u/s 15 of the Act?
Is there any is time limit prescribed under Section 29A(5) of the Act for making an application for extension of time?
The extension of time under Section 29A(5) of the Act can be granted for how much period?
Whether the extension of period referred to in Section 29A(5) of the Act may be on the application of any of the parties or upon the oral request Court can extend the time?
What are going to be the considerations for the Court to impose actual or exemplary costs upon any of the parties under Section 29A(8) of the Act?
1. The Bench comprising of Three Hon'ble Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd, reported in 2010 (2) GLR 1787 (SC) has given directions to Police and Tribunals regarding motor accident claim petitions.
2. The Police are required to forward to the Claims Tribunal an "Accident Information Report" within 30 days of registering an FIR for a motor accident. They must collect additional details about the victim/claimant and provide documents like the FIR, site sketch, driving license, insurance policy, and post-mortem report (if applicable).
3. The Claims Tribunals must register the
This document outlines the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016. Some key points:
- It establishes a Victim Compensation Fund to provide financial compensation to victims of crimes or their dependents for losses or injuries suffered.
- Victims or their dependents are eligible for compensation if the perpetrator is not traceable or punished or if no trial takes place, but the victim is identified.
- The maximum compensation amounts are specified for different crimes, such as Rs. 3 lakhs for acid attacks, rape, and permanent disability.
- The procedure for applying for and receiving compensation is described, including interim relief that can be provided. Compensation is to be awarded by the State
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Legal
Section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, jurisdiction, powers, court, local, international, judgments, supreme court, high court, powers, interim, time limit, amendment 2015
Right of Children Maintenance, Inheritance, Right of Illegitimate Children, A...Legal
This document discusses the rights of children under Hindu and Muslim law, including maintenance, inheritance, and adoption. Some key points:
- Under Hindu law, both parents are equally responsible for maintaining their legitimate and illegitimate children until the age of majority. Illegitimate children have more limited rights to inheritance and joint family property.
- Under Muslim law, the father is responsible for maintaining legitimate children until puberty or marriage. Illegitimate children have no rights of inheritance under Islamic law. However, section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows illegitimate children to claim maintenance from their father.
- The rights of illegitimate children have expanded over time due to acts like the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Effect of Nemi Chand's JudgmentLegal
Prevention of food adulteration act food safety and standards act amendment nemichand supreme court judgment beneficial to accused fine only sub-standard unsafe injurius to health new act law
Juvenile Justice Act - Classification of Offences under the JJ ActLegal
The document discusses the classification of offenses under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 into petty, serious, and heinous categories and the impact this has on legal processes for children in conflict with the law. It provides definitions of these offense categories from the Act. It also discusses provisions regarding preliminary assessment and trial timelines for children, and restrictions on sentencing like no death penalty. It examines a case where a juvenile was ordered to be tried as an adult for a heinous offense. Overall, the document analyzes the JJ Act provisions around classifying and trying offenses committed by juveniles.
The Protection of Human Rights Act - Power to Try and take CognizanceLegal
Protection of Human Rights Act, trial, jurisdiction to try, commit, judgments, Section 193 and 209 of CrPC, without accused being committed to special Court
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
2. INDEX
Sr.
No.
Particulars Page
No
A Index 1
1 Tort 5
2 Section 140 5
3 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 7
4 Under Section 163-A of M.V. Act 9
5 Jurisdiction 17
6 Legal Representative 19
7 Limitation 23
8 Workmen Compensation Act 23
9 Negligence 25
10 Calculation of compensation-Quantum 30
11 Driving Licence 36
12 Private Investigator 48
13 Helper- Cleaner- Coolie 48
14 Premium and Additional Premium 49
15 Goods as defined u/s 2(13) 50
16 Goods Vehicle and Gratuitous Passengers 50
17 Vehicle hired/leased 53
18 Which kind of licence required for LMV-
LGV-HGV-HTV-MGV
54
19 Avoidance Clause 58
20 Injuries and Disabilities 59
21 Review 60
22 Employees’ State Insurance Act and
Employee's Compensation Act
61
23 Life Insurance 61
24 Medical Reimbursement 62
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.2
3. 25 Family Pension 62
26 Compassionate Appointment 62
27 Pillion Rider 63
28 Commencement of Policy and Breach of
Policy
66
29 Driver-Owner 68
30 Travelling on roof-top of the bus 72
31 Private Vehicle 73
32 Permit 74
33 Hire and Reward owner/driver for
production of DL
77
34 Transfer of Vehicle 78
35 Post Mortum Report 79
36 Dishonour of Cheque 80
37 Pay and Recover 81
38 Stepped into the shoe of the owner 87
39 Cover Note 90
40 Hypothecation 92
41 Transfer of the Vehicle 93
42 Public Place u/s 2(34) 94
43 Militant Attack- Hijack-Terrorist
Attack Murder, Heart Attack –Arising
out of Accident
94
44 Dismiss for Default 96
45 Burden of Proof 97
45A Stationary Vehicle 97
46 Tractor-Trolley 98
47 Registration of Vehicle/Number Plate 100
48 Stolen Vehicle 101
49 Hit and Run - Under Section 161 101
50 Third Party 102
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.3
4. 51 Disbursement and Apportionment 103
52 FIR, Charge sheet, Involvement of
Vehicle, Identity of Vehicle
105
53 Necessary Party 106
54 Conductor’s Licence 107
55 Succession Certificate 107
56 Damage to property 108
57 Settlement 109
58 Mediclaim 110
59 Did not Suffer Financial Loss/
Government Servant
110
60 Railway 111
61 Overloading 112
62 Abate 113
63 Fitness Certificate 113
64 Labourer of Hirer 114
65 IMT 115
66 Use of Vehicle other than for
registered
116
67 Central Motor Vehicles Rules 117
68 Miscellaneous 118
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.4
5. MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1. Tort :-
1 - Whether PWD is liable to pay compensation when it
is proved that roads are not maintained properly-
held- yes- PWD is liable on the ground of principle
of res ipsa loquitor and common law.
1987 ACJ 783 (SC)
2 - U/s 163A, 166 & 158(6) of MV Act- claim petition-
is it necessary in all case for claimant to file
claim petition? Held –no- report under section
158(6) is enough to treat the same as claim
petition-
Jai Prakash v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd,
reported in 2010 (2) GLR 1787 (SC), 2011ACJ 1916
(BOM)
3 - Medical negligence- sterilization operation-
failure of- liability of State.
2013 ACJ 406 (HP)
HOME
2. Section 140 :-
1 - U/S 140 – No fault liability – claimant need not to
plea and establish negligence he is required to
prove that injuries sustained due to vehicular
accident.
2011 ACJ 1603 (Bombay)
But P & H High Court has held ( 2011 ACJ 2128)
- in that case claimant pleaded that he was earning
Rs 7000 p/m. – in deposition, he deposed that he
was earning Rs 3000 p/m.-whether oral evidence
which is contrary to the pleadings could be
accepted in absence of any other documentary
evidence- held –no.
2 - NFL application not filled along with main
petition- Tribunal rejected the application filed
later on- HC confirmed the said order- whether
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.5
6. valid- held- no- claimant can file NFL u/s 140 at
any time during pendency of main claim petition.
2010 (8) SCC 620.
3 - No order of investment can be passed in the order
passed u/s 140 of the M. V. Act.
F.A. 1749 of 2012, dated 3/3/14 (Coram Jst.
Harsha Devani)
4 - Constructive res judicata - Whether order passed
u/s 140 of the Act, qua negligence of the driver is
binding to the tribunal as constructive res
judicata, while deciding the claim petition u/s 166
of the Act? - Held- Yes.
F.A. No. 264 of 2005 dated 15/02/2013, Minor
Siddharth Makranbhai. (2012 (2) GLH 465- Siddik
U. Solanki) and 2016 ACJ 842 – NIA Com. V/s
patel Geetaben (FA No.3109 of 2007, decided on
22.8.2014)
Judgment delivered in the case of 2012 (2)
GLH 465- Siddik U. Solanki is modified in First
Appeal No.2103 of 2005 and allied matters,
reported in 2015 STPL(Web) 1988 GUJ = 2015 ACC
630(Guj)= 2016(1) GLH 68 -N. I. I. Com v/s Kalabhai
Maganbhai Koli(Coram Jst. Akil Kuresi and
Jst.Vipul M. Pancholi) and held that no other
defence u/s 149(2) of the Act would be
available to IC at the stage of Section 140 of
the Act and, therefore, Tribunal is not
required to decide at the stage of Section 140
of the Act to decide defence raised u/s 149(2)
of the Act.
5 - U/s 140- Whether amount paid u/s 140 of the can be
recovered in case if the main claim petition
preferred u/s 166 of M V Act is dismissed or
withdrawn subsequent to the passing an order u/s
140 of M V Act - Held- No.
2014 ACJ 708 (Raj), 2015 ACJ 1815 (MP) –
SC judgment in the case of O I Com. v/s Angad
Kol, reported in 2009 ACJ 1411, para Nos. 4 to
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.6
7. 8 and Eshwarappa v/s C. S. Gurushanthappa,
reported in 2010 ACJ 2444 (SC), Indra Devi v/s
Bagada Ram, reported in 2010 ACJ 2451 (SC)
relied upon.
But see 2016 ACJ 295 (del)
6 - An application u/s 140 has to be decided as
expeditiously as possible – an order of hear the
same along with the main claim petition is bad.
2013 ACJ 1371 (Bom).
HOME
3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 :–
1 - O 11 R 14- whether claimant has right to seek
direction from Tribunal to direct the other side to
produce necessary documents - held – yes
2011 ACJ 1946 (AP)
2 - O 41 R 33- whether the appellate court has powers
to modify the award in absence of claimant- held –
yes
2011 ACJ 1570 (Guj)
3 - Death of owner of vehicle- application by claimant
to join widow of owner- objected by insurance
company on the ground of limitation- whether
objections are maintainable? Held- no- scheme of
act does not provide for the same-
2011 ACJ 1717
4 - MV Act u/s 169- CPC – whether Tribunal can exercise
all powers of Civil Court without prejudice to the
provisions of Section 169 of MV Act? –held- yes-
Tribunal can follow procedure laid down in CPC
2011 ACJ 2062 (DEL)
5 - IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground that
though notice to driver and owner was issued to
produce copy of DL but they did not produce and
same amounts to breach of the terms of the IP-
whether IC is held liable- held- yes-Issuance of
notice neither proves objections of IC nor draws
any adverse inference against insured-
2012 ACJ 107- 1985 ACJ 397 SC followed
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.7
8. 6 - Whether Tribunal can dismiss an application
preferred u/O 26 Rule 4 and Order 16 Rule 19 for
taking evidence by Court Commissioner? -Held- No
2012 ACJ 1623 (Chh)
7 - Amendment in claim petition preferred u/s 163A-
whether can be allowed- Held- Yes
2012 ACJ 2809
8- O-6 R-17 – IC moved an application for impleading
driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle-
whether, can be allowed if claimant does not want
any relief against them?- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1116, SC judgments followed.
9 - Powers to take additional evidence- when can be
allowed- Guideline.
2013 ACJ 1399 (P&H)
10 - Whether failure of the driver to produce licence
u/O 12, R-8 of CPC would be sufficient to draw an
inference that driver did not possess a valid and
effective licence.
2013 ACJ 2530 (Del).
11 - Execution – Attachment of residential
property/house- whether executing court can pass
such order of attachment?- Held- Yes.- Special
privilege provided under CPC is not applicable in
the case of enforcement of award.
2014 ACJ 1467 (P&H) – Prem Chand v/s Akashdeep
(K. Kannan. J)
12 - CPC - Order 11 Rule 14 - Notice for production of
document by IC - the object of notice is to save
time and expenses only, the cost or the expenses of
such evidence could have been imposed on the owner
or the driver of the vehicle and nothing more, if
in response to the notice, the licence was not
produced, the Insurance Company ought to have
called for the record of the R.T.O. or could have
produced other evidence.
Karan Singh v/s Manoharlal, MP High Court,
reported in 1989(1) ACC 291 = 1989 ACJ 177 –
Para 9.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.8
9. 13 - Tribunal is a ‘COURT’ and proceedings before it are
judicial proceedings- whether Evidence Act applies
to MV Act? –held –yes
2011 ACJ 2228 (JAR).
14 - DL- IC moved an application for direction against
owner/driver for production of DL - owner/driver
failed to produce DL – Will not absolve IC from
its liability. - IC has to prove its case by
leading evidence.
2015 ACJ 1125 (Ker).
15 - Claims tribunal and civil court- Jurisdiction –
inter se dispute between registered owner and de
facto owner – can only be decided by Tribunal.
2015 ACJ 1251 (Ker).
HOME
4. Under Section 163-A of M.V. Act:-
1 - U/S 166 & 163A- income of deceased more than
Rs.40,000- whether Tribunal can reject an
application u/s 163A? Held – no- Tribunal ought to
have converted the same one u/s 166
2004 ACJ 934 (SC) but See 2014 ACJ 2434
(Gauhati). It is also held in 2016 ACJ 176
(P&H) that Tribunal has no power to suo moto
allow such application.
2 - Unknown assailant fired on driver while he was
driving- truck dashed with tree- whether Tribunal
was justified in concluding that accident was a
vehicular accident and claimant is entitled for
compensation u/s 163A of MV Act– held- yes
2000 ACJ 801 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1658 (MP), one
another judgement of Guj High court, Jst R K
Abichandani J
3 - U/s 163A- truck capsized- driver died- whether
entitled for compensation- held –yes- negligence is
not required to be proved in 163A application
2011 ACJ 2442 (MP)
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.9
10. 4 - New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand
Mukhi and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417,
wherein, the son of the owner was driving the
vehicle, who died in the accident, was not regarded
as third party. In the said case the court held
that neither Section 163-A nor Section 166 would be
applicable.
5 - The deceased was traveling on Motor Cycle, which he
borrowed from its real owner for going from Ilkal
to his native place Gudur. When the said motor
cycle was proceeding on Ilkal-Kustagl, National
Highway, a bullock cart proceeding ahead of the
said motor cycle carrying iron-sheet, which
suddenly stopped and consequently deceased who was
proceeding on the said motor cycle dashed bullock
cart. Consequent to the aforesaid incident, he
sustained fatal injuries over his vital part of
body and on the way to Govt. Hospital, Ilkal, he
died.
It was forcefully argued by the counsel
appearing for the respondent that the claimants are
not the `third party', and therefore, they are not
entitled to claim any benefit under Section 163-A of
the MVA. In support of the said contention, the
counsel relied on the decision of this Court in the
case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi,
(2008) 5 SCC 736; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 417, 2015
ACJ 1477 (Cal)- Ningamma v/s UiI Com, 2009 ACJ 2020
(SC) followed.
In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736,
wherein, it has been categorically held that in a
case where third party is involved, the liability
of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was
also held in the said decision that where, however,
compensation is claimed for the death of the owner
or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract
of insurance being governed by the contract qua IP,
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.10
11. the claim of the claimant against the insurance
company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was
held in the said decision that Section 163-A of the
MVA cannot be said to have any application in
respect of an accident wherein the owner of the
motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision
further held that the question is no longer res
integra. The liability under section 163-A of the
MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person
cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient,
with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the
deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms
of Section 163-A of the MVA. Apex Court held - “the
ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly
applicable to the facts of the present case. In the
present case, the deceased was not the owner of the
motorbike in question. He borrowed the said
motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot
be held to be employee of the owner of the
motorbike although he was authorised to drive the
said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would
step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike.”
2009 (13) SCC 710 – Ningmma v/s United India.
6 - S. 163A - liability under - liability u/s. 163A is
on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be
both, a claimant as also a recipient - for the said
purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance
could be taken recourse to - liability of insurance
company was confined to Rs. 1,00,000 - appeal
partly allowed.
2008(5) SCC 736 Rajni Devi.
But when trust is the owner of the vehicle and
its employee sustain injury, IC of such vehicle can
be held responsible, provided such vehicle is
covered with the comprehensive policy.
2015 ACJ 1623 (Raj)
7 - Deceased died due to electrocution while engaged in
welding job on a stationary truck and not due to
any fault or omission on the part of driver-
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.11
12. whether the claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable
and IC can be held liable?- held- yes- any fault or
omission on the part of driver has no relevance and
driver is not necessary party in claim petition
filed u/s 163A
2011 ACJ 2608- several SC ratios followed
8 - U/s 163A- Motorcycle hit a large stone lying on the
tar road- fatal injury- Tribunal found that
deceased was negligent and entitled for
compensation- IC led no evidence to point out that
deceased was negligent- IC held liable.
2012 ACJ 1- Sinitha but also see A.Sridhar,
reported in 2012 AAC 2478 and also see – 2004
ACJ 934.
9 - U/s 163A- whether the claim petition u/s 163A is
maintainable without joining the owner and driver
of the offending vehicle? -held- yes- since the
question of fault is not of the offending vehicle
is of no consequence
2012 ACJ 271
10 - U/s 163A – procedure and powers of Tribunal-
Tribunal need not to go into the negligence part-
SC decisions referred to- Guidelines issued.
2012 ACJ 1065 (Ker)
11 - U/s 163A- deceased died due to heart attack-
whether claimants are entitled for compensation u/s
163A of the MV Act?- Held- No- in absence of any
evidence to the effect that deceased died due to
heavy burden or there any other sustainable ground.
2012 ACJ 1134 (AP)- Murder – 2012 ACJ (Ker)
Culpable Homicide- Altercation between
conductor and passenger- conductor pushed passenger
out of bus – passenger crushed in the said bus –
conductor prosecuted u/s 324 & 304 of IPC- whether
in such situation, since driver failed in his duty
to stop the bus, he is liable for accident. Owner
of bus vicariously held liable and IC is is
directed to indemnify owner of the bus – further
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.12
13. held that accident was arising out of use of motor
vehicle.
12 - u/s 163A- Minor girl travelling in the Auto
Rickshaw, received injuries from the bottle thrown
from the other vehicle- whether claim petition u/s
163A is maintainable in such case? - Held -Yes
2012 ACJ 1162 (Ker).
13 - U/s 163A- whether the compensation has to be
awarded u/s 163A- it has to be as per the structure
formula given under the Second Schedule? - Held-
Yes- the benefit of filling a petition on no fault
liability can be claimed on the basis of income
with a cap of Rs.40,000/-
2012 ACJ 1251 (Del)- 2013 ACJ 2870, Gaytri v/s
Amir Sing (Del) - various SC decisions are
considered.
14 - Earlier direction of High Court to disposed of
application preferred u/s 166 of the Act, while
deciding an appeal preferred against the order
passed u/s 163A of the Act. Held simultaneous
petitions u/s 166 and 163A are not maintainable.
2012 (2) GLH 325- Ravindra Senghani
15 - U/s 163A- whether a claim petition is maintainable
when the income of deceased is more than 40,000/-
per annum?- Held- No.
2012 ACJ 1687
16 - U/s 163A- Claim petition under 163A is maintainable
against other vehicle, which was not at fault?-
Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 1896-SC judgments followed.
17 - Whether claimant can convert an application u/s 166
to 163A and vise versa?- Held- yes- SC judgements
followed- 2011 ACJ 721
2012 ACJ 1986
18 - U/s 163A- whether driver of the offending vehicle
is required to be joined? Held- Not necessary.
2012 AAC 2495 (Del)
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.13
14. 19 - U/s 163A- collision between two vehicles- joint
tortfeasor- whether the tortfeasor is entitled to
get amount of compensation?- Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2206 (Ker)- 2004 ACJ Deepal G. Soni
(SC), relied upon.
20 - U/s 163A- Whether Tribunal can award higher amount
than what is been provided under the Second
Schedule? -Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2292 (Kar) – 2008 ACJ 2148 (SC), Sapna
v/s UII Com., 2015 ACJ 1542 (All)
21 - Claim petition u/s 163A for the death of the owner
is maintainable? -Held -No- claimants cannot be
both i.e owner and claimant.
2012 ACJ 2400 (MP). 2008 ACJ 1441- Rajni Devi
and 2009 ACJ 2020- Ningamma (both SC -
followed).
22 - Use of vehicle- live electricity wire- driver came
in contact with it died- whether claim petition is
maintainable? -Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ (AP). SC judgments relied upon.
23 - Conversion of an application preferred u/s 166 to
one under 163A- whether court can go into the
legality and correctness of pleadings at such
stage? -Held- No.
2012 AAC 2610 (Del)- 2012 ACJ 2482 (P&H)
24 - S.166, S.163A- Claim for compensation - Remedy u/s.
163A and S. 166 being final and independent of each
other, claimant cannot pursue them simultaneously -
Claim petition finally determined under S. 163A -
Claimant would be precluded from proceeding further
with petition filed under S. 166.
2011 SC 1138- Dhanjibhai K Gadhvi.
25 - The law laid down in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna
Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441 : (AIR 1977 SC
1248) was accepted by the legislature while
enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by
introducing Section 163-A of the Act providing for
payment of compensation notwithstanding anything
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.14
15. contained in the Act or in any other law for the
time being in force that the owner of a motor
vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable
to pay in the case of death or permanent
disablement due to accident arising out of the use
of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in
the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the
victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made
under sub-section (1) of Section 163-A of the Act,
the claimant shall not be required to plead or
establish that the death or permanent disablement
in respect of which the claim has been made was due
to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the
owner of the vehicle concerned. in the judgments of
three-Judge Bench in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna
Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441 : (AIR 1977 SC
1248)
26 - Unknown vehicle-whether claim petition u/s 163A is
maintainable?- Held- yes.
2013 ACJ 290 (Del)
27 - u/s 163A, 140 & 166 – conversion of an application
u/s 166 from 163A, after getting an amount under
section 140 is permissible- Held No.
2013 ACJ 1082.
28 - Claim petition u/s 166 and 163-A- An application
u/s 163A is allowed- Whether a claim petition u/s
166 is then maintainable?- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1779 (Guj)
29 - Claim petition u/s 163-A- income of the deceased is
shown, more than 40,000/-per annum- whether is
maintainable? - Held- No.
2014 ACJ 2329 (Guj) New.I.A. Com. v/s Pachan
Manek Gadhvi.
30 - 163-A- When it is proved that claimant/deceased
himself was negligent in causing the accident- IC
is not liable to pay compensation.
2013 ACJ 2586 (AP) Bajaj Allianz v/s Gaddam
Swami, 2013 ACJ 2622 (Ker) – O.I. Com. v/s P.P.
Nandanan.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.15
16. 31 - 163A- Driver and Cleaner sustained injuries while
unloading goods- Whether claim petition u/s 163A is
maintainable?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 1206
32 - Judgments of Sinitha and Shila Dutta are referred
to Full Bench.
2013 ACJ 2856- UII Com. v/s Sunil Kumar
33 - Conversion of an application u/s 163A to one u/s
166- whether permissible?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 493 (AP),
34 - 163A- Failure of brakes- whether in such situation,
a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable?- Held
-Yes.
2014 ACJ 1128
35 - U/s 163A- Whether the IC is required to be
exonerated in a case where IC has failed to prove
and point out that deceased himself was negligent-
Held- No- IC held liable.
2012 SC 797- Sinitha's case.
36 - Whether a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable
when award is already passed u/s 161 of the Act?-
Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2314 (Chh).
37 - Second Schedule of M.V. Act- needs to be revised
and further direction are given to award
compensation in the cases of child aged between 0
to 5 years and 5 to 10 years.
2014 ACJ Puttamma v/s Narayana Reddy (SC).
38 - Claimant of claim petition preferred u/s 163A are
not entitled for compensation under the head loss
of consortium, funeral etc.
2015 ACJ 1100 (P&H).
39 - Claim petition preferred u/s 163A – joint
tortfeasors – tribunal decided negligence in ratio
of 50:50 between two vehicles. - liability of other
IC will not be limited to 50% only.
2015 ACJ 1271 (Ker)
HOME
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.16
17. 5. Jurisdiction:-
1 - Jurisdiction – claimant residing in District H-
insurance company is also having office in District
C- whether the Tribunal at District C has
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition- held-
yes
2009 ACJ 564 (SC)
2 - Accident occurred in Nepal while deceased was on
pilgrimage- Journey started from India- Opponents
are Indian citizens and having offices in India-
Whether claim petition in India is maintainable-
Held- Yes-
2012 ACJ 1452 ((P&H)
3 - Jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat– guideline.
2012 ACJ 1608.
4 - In accident vehicle got damaged- claim petition
filed against one of the IC- claim petition, partly
allowed- claimant preferred another application
against another IC- whether maintainable? -Held-
No.
2012 AAC 2944 (Chh)- SC judgments followed.
5 - Jurisdiction- Damage to property of owner- whether
maintainable?- Held- No- tribunal has jurisdiction
to entertain only those applications wherein damage
is caused to property of the third party. 2005 ACJ
(SC) 1, Dhanraj v/s N.I.A. Com is relied upon.
2012 ACJ 2737.
6 - Jurisdiction- after the death of the her husband,
deceased was staying with her brother- whether
claim petition can be preferred at the place where
she is staying with her brother? -held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2811
7 - U/s 166(2) – jurisdiction of Tribunal - Claimant
migrant labourer - Appeal by insurer - Award amount
not disputed - Setting aside of award on ground of
lack of territorial jurisdiction - Would only
result in re-trial before appropriate Tribunal -
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.17
18. S.C. would exercise powers under Art.142 to do
complete justice in such a case.
AIR 2009 SC 1022- Mantoo Sarkar v/s O.I. Com.
Ltd., 2015 ACJ 2512 (MP)
7-A Territorial Jurisdiction – even if accident
occurred out the territorial jurisdiction of
tribunal and claimant and driver/owner staying out
side the territorial jurisdiction of tribunal,
claim petition is maintainable, if IC is carrying
business with the territorial jurisdiction of
tribunal.
2016 (3) SCC 43 – Malati Sardar v/s N I Com.
8 - Jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal - Claim for loss of
business income due to non-use of vehicle - Falls
under head damage to property - Claims Tribunal
would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide
such claim.
AIR 2007 Guj 39 but also see 2013 ACJ 1732
(P&H).
9 - Jurisdiction- where a claim petition is
maintainable- Good discussion.
2013 ACJ 1787
10 - Cause of action- Jurisdiction- Accident occurred in
Nepal- Bus was registered in India- Whether a claim
petition is maintainable in India?- Held- No.
2013ACJ 1807 (Bih).
11 - Estoppel- Consumer court held that driver was
holding valid licence and IC is directed to pay
amount by Consumer court- Whether IC can take same
defence before the MAC Tribunal- Held- No. IC is
estopped from raising such stand.
24 ACJ (Kar) 2736.
12 - U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its deletion-
accident occurred prior to the said deletion- claim
petition filed after deletion and since years after
the accident - whether claim petition is
maintainable? - Held- Yes.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.18
19. 13 - Limitation – claim petition filed in 2005, whereas
accident occurred in the year 1990- whether claim
petition is time barred?- held- no
2011ACJ 1585 (Jark)
14 - Limitation- U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its
deletion- accident occurred prior to the said
deletion- claim petition filed after deletion and
since years after the accident - whether claim
petition is maintainabile? - Held- Yes.
2015 ACJ 221 (Chh)
15 - Tribunal dismissed claim petition on the ground
that accident is not proved- whether Tribunal
erred?- held- yes- Tribunal is supposed to conduct
‘inquiry’ not ‘trial’ in claim petition and summery
procedure has to be evolved- Tribunal could have
invoked power envisaged u/s 165 of Evidence Act
2011 ACJ 1475 (DEL)
HOME
6. Legal Representative:-
1 - Legal representative- brother & married daughter-
evidence that brother and his family was staying
with deceased and brother was dependent- whether
claim petition preferred by brother is
maintainable? Held- yes
1987 ACJ 561(SC), 2005 ACJ 1618 (Guj), 2012 AAC
2965 (Mad)- 2014 ACJ 1454 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 1759
(All) – GSTRC v/s Ramanbhai prabhatbhai – 1987
ACJ 561(SC)) followed.
But see 2014 ACJ 1669 (All)- Chandrawati
v/s Ram Sewak – 2007 ACJ 1279 (SC) – Manjuri
Bera v/s O I Com. relied on.
2 - Widow- remarriage by her- whether claim petition by
her maintainable?- held- yes-whether a widow is
divested of her right to get compensation for the
death of her husband on her remarrying during
pendency of claim petition? Held- no.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.19
20. 2008ACJ 816( MP), 2003 ACJ 542(MP), 2004 ACJ
1467(MP) 1992 ACJ 1048 (Raj), 2011 ACJ 1625
(Gau), 2013 ACJ 1679 (J & K). 2014 ACJ 950
(AP).
3 - Dependants- death of unmarried woman- living
separately from the claimant- held claimant was not
dependent and not entitled for compensation but
entitled to get 50000 u/s 140 of the Act
2012 ACJ 155- 2007 ACJ 1279 SC followed
4 - Meaning of legal representative is given u/s 2(11)
of CPC- words used u/s 166 of MV Act are legal
representative and not Dependants- therefore,
includes earning wife and parents also- further
held that wife is entitled for compensation, till
the date of her remarriage.
2012 ACJ 1230 (Mad)- considered ratios of SC,
reported in 1989 (2) SCC (Supp) 275- Banco v/s
Nalini Bai Naique and 1987 ACJ 561 (SC)- GSRTS
v/s Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai – 2013 ACJ 99 (AP)
5 - Legal representative- live in relationship- second
wife- whether she is entitled for compensation,
when first wife is living? - Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2586 (AP). - 2011 (1) SCC 141 (live in
relationship- u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Man is
liable to pay maintenance). Also 2016 ACJ
79(Kar)
6 - Death of mother during pendency of claim petition-
father of the deceased not considered as dependent-
whether proper?- Held- No- claim petition ought to
have been decided on the basis that mother of the
deceased was alive on the date of accident, as
right to sue accrued on date of accident.
2013 ACJ 19 (Del)
7 - Whether on the basis of succession certificate,
brother's son of deceased gets right to file an
application under the Act for getting compensation-
Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1176 (J&K).
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.20
21. 7A - Whether on the natural death of the one of the
joint claimants, succession certificate is required
to produced so as to enable Tribunal to pass an
order of disbursement of the awarded amount,
falling in the share of deceased claimant?- Held-
No.
2014 ACJ 891 (MP).
7B - To get awarded amount, L.R. Are not required to get
succession certificate- SC judgment in the case of
Rukhsana v/s Nazrunnisa, 2000 (9) SCC 240 followe.
2014 ACJ 2501 (Raj)
8 - Compensation cannot be denied to the members of the
family of the sole breadwinner.
1987 ACJ 561 (SC) -GSRTC v/s Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai. See also 2013 ACJ 2793 (Mad)- UII
Com. v/s Poongavanam.
9 - Legal representative- Adopted daughter- whether
said to LR? -Held- Yes-
2013 ACJ 2708 (P&H)
10 - Legal representative- death of member of a
registered charitable society who renounced the
world- whether, claim petition by society is
maintainable?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 667 (SC) (FB) – Montford Brothers v/s
UII Com.
11 - Remarriage of Widow- Whether dis-entitled her to
get compensation?- Held No.
2014 ACJ 950 (AP).
12 - Legal representative and legal heirs- u/s 166
words Legal representative are use whereas, u/s
163-A words Legal heirs are used. Therefore,
Legal representative of deceased is not entitled to
claim compensation u/s163-A of the Act.
2014 ACJ 1492 (Ker)- Kadeeja v/s Managing
Director, KSRTC dated 18.10.2013.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.21
22. 13 - Claim petition filed by the children of deceased
from the first marriage on the ground that claim
petition filed by the second wife is allowed-
whether proper?- Held- Yes. - As amount of
compassion received by the L.R. Of deceased deemd
to be hold by him on behalf of all L.R.- children
of deceased from the first marriage are directed to
file a suit for recovery.
2014 ACJ 2504(All)
14 - Legal representative- live in relationship- second
wife- whether she is entitled for compensation,
when first wife is living? - Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2586 (AP). - 2011 (1) SCC 141 (live in
in relationship- u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Man is
liable to pay maintenance).
2007 (7) SCJ 467- Hafizun Begum v/s Md.
Ikram Heque.
16 - Married sons and daughters can be considered as
dependents? And are entitled for compensation?-
Held- Yes.
2015 ACJ 1180 (P&H). - 1987 ACJ 561 (SC) –
GSRTC v/s Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai followed.
17 - Agent of victim – Whether owner can prefer claim
petition without filing authority letter u/s 166
(1) (d) of the M V Act on behalf of the
victim/deceased? Held – No.
2015 ACJ 1688 (Gau)
18 - Mother of the deceased died after three year of
filing of the claim petition – her LR moved an
pallication to be joined as LR of mother of the
deceased- whether such application can be allowed?-
Held- Yes.
2016 ACJ 68 (Ker)
HOME
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.22
23. 7. Limitation:-
1. limitation – claim petition filed in 2005, whereas
accident occurred in the year 1990- whether claim
petition is time barred?- held- no
2011 ACJ 1585 (Jark)
2 - Limitation- U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its
deletion- accident occurred prior to the said
deletion- claim petition filed after deletion and
since years after the accident - whether claim
petition is maintainabile? - Held- Yes.
2015 ACJ 221 (Chh)
HOME
8. Workmen Compensation Act:-
1 - Receipt of compensation by claimant under WC Act,
without there being any application by claimant
under the WC Act - whether claimant is at liberty
to file an application u/s 166 and/ or 163A of MV
Act? - held- yes- there is no bar for claimant to
file an application u/s 163A of MV Act as he has
not made any application under WC Act
2004 ACJ 934 (SC) , 2003 ACJ 1434 (P&H), 2011
ACJ 1786 (KAR)
2 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147, 149, 166, 167,
173 - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - S. 3 -
appeal against the order of High Court directing
appellant to satisfy whole award - motor accident
case - fatal - third party risk involved -
liability of vehicle owner and insurer to be
decided - applicability of Workmen's Compensation
Act - accident of truck - driver died on the spot -
heirs of deceased contended that truck was 15 years
old and was not in good condition and was not well
maintained - claim for compensation - truck owner
denied his fault on the ground that driver was
drunk at the time of the accident - Tribunal
dismissed claim petition holding fault of driver
for the accident - claimants preferred appeal
before High Court - High Court observed that
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.23
24. accident took place because the arm bolt of the
truck broke and not due to the fault of driver -
awarded Rs. 2,10,000/- with 10% interest as a
compensation and directed appellant to satisfy
whole award - appellant company defended itself on
the ground that as per S. 147 and 149 of the Motor
Vehicles Act is concerned, liability of the insurer
is restricted up to the limit provided by W.C. Act
- insurer-appellant preferred this leave petition -
whether appellant insurance company is liable to
pay the entire compensation to claimant or its
liability is restricted to the limit prescribed in
W.C. Act – held -yes- further held that the
insurance policy was for 'Act Liability' and so the
liability of appellant would not be unlimited but
would be limited as per W.C. Act - appellant
directed to pay claim amount up to the extent
prescribed in W.C. Act and owner of truck is
directed to pay remaining claim amount
2005(6) SCC 172- N.I.C v/s Prembai Patel
3 - Driver hit his truck against tree- IC raised
objection that its liability is restricted to
liability under the W.C Act- whether sustainable-
held – No- Clause of policy cannot override
statutory provisions of Section 167, which gives
option to claimant to opt any of the remedy
provided under the Act
2012 ACJ 23 – 2006 ACJ 528 SC followed
4 - Claim petition under M.V. Act after getting
compensation under the W.C. Act- whether
maintainable- held- yes- deceased died due to
injuries sustained by chassis of the bus owned by
the corporation of which deceased was the employee-
as deceased died in motor accident – claim
petition under M.V. Act also, maintainable
2012 ACJ 239- 2003 ACJ 1759 (Guj) followed
5 - Doctrine of election- whether claimant can claim
compensation u/s 168 of the Act when he has already
received some amount under the WC Act? - Held- No.
2012 ACJ 2069 – Sc judgment followed.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.24
25. 6 - W.C. Act- Employer suo motu paid compensation to
the L.R of deceased u/s 8 of the W.C. Act.- claim
petition preferred earlier by the L.R. Of deceased-
whether I.C. Can claim that amount paid under the
W.C. Act may be deducted from the amount of
compensation which may be awarded u/s 166 7 168 of
M.V. Act?- Held- No. - Since compensation is paid
u/s 8 of the W.C. Act, Section 8 and L.R. Of
deceased had not preferred any application u/s 10
of the W.C. Act, argument of I.C. Is turned down.
2013 ACJ 709.
7 - Whether Tribunal can award compensation on the
basis of provisions contained under the W.C. Act? -
Held -No.
2012 ACJ 2251 (Mad)
8 - I.C is liable to pay entire amount of compensation
and not only under Liability of W.C. Act.
2013 ACJ 2205 (Del).
9 - Choice of forum – IC deposited compensation with
commissioner -whether in such situation claimants
are precluded from making any claim petition under
the MV Act?- Held- No.
2015 ACJ 1429 (P&H)
HOME
9. Negligence:-
1 - Negligence- Apex court observed that HC was not
cognizant of the principle that in road accident
claim, strict principles of proof as required in
criminal case are not attracted- once eye witness who
has taken the claimant to the road accident for
treatment, immediately after the accident has deposed
in favour of claimant, HC was not right in holding
that accident is not proved and claimant is not
entitled for any compensation- SC allowed claim
petition of injured claimant
2011 ACJ 1613 (SC)
2 - Confessional statement made by driver of the offending
vehicle, before the trial court- whether, in such
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.25
26. situation, claimant is required to prove the
negligence of the offending vehicle- held- no
2011 ACJ 2548, 2011 ACJ 2568
3 - Composite negligence- non-joinder of joint tortfeasor-
accident occurred between two vehicles- claimant
impleaded only one vehicle- effect of- whether the
tortfeasor impleaded can seek exclusion of liability
on the ground that other tortfeasor has not been
joined?- Held- No- Third party has a choice of action
against any of the tortfeasor – but in such situation,
Tribunal's is duty bound to either direct the claimant
to join the other tortfeasor or pass the award against
the impleaded tortfeasor, leaving it open for him to
take independent action against other tortfeasor for
apportionment and recovery.
2012 ACJ 1103 (P&H), 2015 ACJ 2698 (Guj),2015 ACJ
2690 (All)
4 - Is it incumbent upon the claimants to prove negligence
of the offending vehicle? Held -Yes- if they fail to
do so, claim petition preferred u/s 166 cannot be
allowed.
2012 ACJ 1305 (SC) Surendra Kumar Arora v/s Dr.
Manoj Bisla. 2016 ACJ 163 (Ass)
5 - Negligence- contributory negligence- claimant
travelling on rooftop- such travelling by claimant is
negligent but unless negligent act contributes to the
accident- claimant cannot be held negligent.
2012 ACJ 1968.
6 - Collision between Tanker and Jeep- rash and negligent
driving of tanker- owner and driver of jeep not
joined- whether claim petition can be dismissed on
that ground?- Held- No- owner and driver of jeep not
necessary party.
2012 AAC 2479(All)
7 - Pedestrian under the influence of liquor- hit by truck
from behind- whether such pedestrian can he held
liable for such accident- Held- No.
2012 ACJ 2358 (MP).
8 - Negligence- Finding with respect to negligence-
whether can be arrived at on the basis of filling of
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.26
27. FIR and Chargesheet? - Held- No.
2012 AAC 2701 (Del) and 2012 AAC 2934 (MP)- SC
judgments followed.
9 - Contributory negligence- Child- Child cannot be held
negligent in the accident.
2013 ACJ 673. But see 2015 ACJ 2124 (P&H).
10- Negligence- Conviction in the criminal Court- whether
findings of the Criminal Court is binding on the
Claims Tribunal- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1042.
11- Contributory Negligent- Non possession of driving
licence- whether falls under it? -Held – No – it is
not a case of contributory negligence.- difference
between contributory and composite negligence pointed
out.
2013 ACJ 1297 (Pat).
12- Negligence- While reversing the vehicle- Guideline.
2013 ACJ 1357 (Chh)
13- Unmanned level crossing- accident by Train- whether
Rail authority is liable to pay compensation- Held-
Yes.
2013 ACJ 1653.
14- Accident occurred without negligence of the driver- No
other vehicle involved- Accident occurred because
truck rolled down on the slope- Whether IC is liable?
-Held Yes.
2013 ACJ 1993 (Chh)
15- Negligence- Helmet- not wearing of- deceased a pillion
rider, was not wearing helmet and IC took objection
that as deceased was not wearing held as per the
traffic rules, he contributed in the accident and,
therefore, IC may be exonerated- whether tenable?-
Held- No.
2013 ACJ 2038 (Del). 2014 ACJ 869 (P&H)
16- It is no doubt true that finding of Criminal Court is
not binding on the Tribunal but if claimant has
admitted his negligence in Criminal Proceeding, same
is binding on the Tribunal.
2013 ACJ 2257 (Del)
17- Negligence- Contributory negligence- driving under the
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.27
28. influence of the Alcohol- Guidelines for assessment of
negligence.
2013 ACJ 2349 (Chh)
18- Res judicate- negligence- when findings giving in the
other case is not binding? - Principles stated.
2013 ACJ 2283 (MP)
19- 163-A- When it is proved that claimant/deceased
himself was negligent in causing the accident- IC is
not liable to pay compensation.
2013 ACJ 2586 (AP) Bajaj Allianz v/s Gaddam
Swami, 2013 ACJ 2622 (Ker) – O.I. Com. v/s P.P.
Nandanan
20- Under the influence of liquor/alcohol - Negligence-
guidelines for consideration.
2013 ACJ 2712 (SC) – Dulcina Fernandes v/s
Joaquim Xavier.
21- Composite & contributory negligence- Whether Tribunal
is required to decide quantum of negligence in a case
where claimant is third partly- Held -No.- Further
held that claim is not required to join both the
tortfeasors.
2014 ACJ 704 (SC) (FB) Pawan Kumar v/s Harkishan
Dass Mohan.
22- Contributory negligence- Minor- No specific evidence
that accident had taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of minor- Only because minor was not
having licence to pay any vehicle and was prohibited
by law, it does not mean that minor contributed in the
accident. Therefore, in absence of cogent evident it
cannot be held that it was a case of contributory
negligence.
2014 ACJ 1012 (SC) – Meera Devi v/s HSRTC
23- 163-A- When it is proved that claimant/deceased
himself was negligent in causing the accident- IC is
not liable to pay compensation.
2013 ACJ 2586 (AP) Bajaj Allianz v/s Gaddam
Swami, 2013 ACJ 2622 (Ker) – O.I. Com. v/s P.P.
Nandanan
24- Pay and recover- Accident by negligent driving of
Minor- Liability of Financier – order of pay and
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.28
29. recover only against owner/financier and not against
minor
2014 ACJ 660 (Del), IC is held liable to pay and
recover as same is liable under the contractual
liability. 2014 ACJ 2298 (Del)
25- Contributory negligence- Minor- No specific evidence
that accident had taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of minor- Only because minor was not
having licence to pay any vehicle and was prohibited
by law, it does not mean that minor contributed in the
accident. Therefore, in absence of cogent evident it
cannot be held that it was a case of contributory
negligence.
2014 ACJ 1012 (SC) – Meera Devi v/s HSRTC, 2016
ACJ 777 (All)
26- Negligence- Criminal Trial- Acquittal- whether order
of criminal court is binding on the Tribunal- Held-
No.
2014 ACJ 1174, 2016 ACJ 402 (P&H)
27- IC seeks to avoid it liability on the ground that ‘A’
was driving the vehicle- claimant claimed that vehicle
was being driven by ‘B’- IC sought reliance on
statement made u/s 161 of Cr.P.C and chargesheet- same
are not substantive piece of evidence- even IC has
failed to prove the contents of the same – no other
evidence was produced by IC to point out that
particular person was plying the vehicle- IC held
liable
2011 ACJ 2213 (ALL), 2016 ACJ 821 (P&H)
28- Res ipsa loquitur – tyre burst – Whether driver of the
offending vehicle can be held responsible?- Held –
Yes.
2016 ACJ 736 (P&H)
HOME
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.29
30. 10. Calculation of compensation-Quantum:-
1 - Whether deduction towards EPF and GIS be made in
calculating income of the deceased?- held- no
2011 ACJ 1441(SC), 2014 ACJ 1416 (SC) (FB) –
Manasvi Jain v/s Delhi Transport Corporation.,
2014 ACJ 1430 (SC) (FB) – Ramilaben Chnubhai
Parmar v/s Nii Com.
2 - Pregnant woman suffered injury which led to death of
child in the womb - foetus- Rs 2 lacs awarded for the
death of the child in the womb - 2005 ACJ 69 (KAR),
2067 ACJ 2067 (MP), 2011 ACJ 2400 (MAD), 2011 ACJ 2432
(SC), 2014 ACJ 2509 (P&H), Kusuma's case, 2011 ACJ
2432(SC) - SC judgment followed
3 - Quantum- deceased last year student of B. Tech-relying
upon several Supreme Court decisions, income taken as
Rs 12K per month- 10% deducted as he was in the final
year of B.Tech- RS 10,800/- as monthly income
considered
2011 ACJ 2403 (AP), 2011 ACJ 2082(P&H), 2011 ACJ
1702(AP)
4 - Coolie- suffered loss of hand- amputation of hand- SC
held it to be case of 100% functional disablement-
2011 ACJ 2436 (SC)
5 - House wife- quantum- Rs 3,000/- p/m awarded
2011 ACJ 1670 (DEL), Lata Wadhwa, reported in
2001 ACJ 1735(SC)
In case of Arun Kumar Agrawal, reported in
2010(9) SCC 218, Apex Court has awarded
compensation taking monthly income of wife at Rs.
5,000/- p/m.
6 - Principle of assessment of quantum- determination of
income- whether HRA, CCA and MA, paid by employer
should be taken in to consideration – held- yes-
2011 ACJ 1441 (SC)
7 - Multiplier- unmarried son- proper multiplier- average
age of parents to be considered
2011 (7) SCC 65= 2011 ACJ 1990 (SC)= 2011 (3) SCC
(Civil) 529- Shyam Singh but differing views in
P.S. Somnathan v/s Dist. Insurance Officer,
reported in 2011 ACJ 737 and Amrit Bhanu Shali
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.30
31. v/s NI Com., reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 and
Saktidevi v/s NI Com, reported in 2010 (14) SCC
575 = 2012 (1) SCC (Civ) 766
8 - Loss of dependency- deceased lady aged 31- claimant
husband, not financially dependent on the deceased-
whether he is entitled for compensation for loss of
‘dependency’ – held- no
2011 ACJ 1734 (DEL)
But in case of Arun Kumar Agrawal, reported
in 2010(9) SCC, Apex Court has awarded
compensation taking monthly income of wife at Rs.
50000 p/a.
9 - Deceased aged 57- multiplier of 9 awarded by SC-
relying on Sarla Verma
10 - Tribunal deducted 1/3 from the income of decease-
contention of IC that as deceased was unmarried, 50%
should have been deducted- whether Tribunal erred in
deducting only 1/3 amount as personal expenditure?-
held – no –
2009 ACJ 2359(SC), 2004 ACJ 699 (SC), 2006 ACJ
1058 (SC), 2008 ACJ 1357(SC), 2009 ACJ 1619 (SC)
11- Deduction in case of death of bachelor- whether it
should be 2/3 or 1/3? – held 1/3 deduction is just and
proper- 2009 ACJ 2359(SC)- Deo Patodi followed
2011 ACJ 2518
12- U/s 168- compensation- statutory provisions clearly
indicates that compensation must be just and it cannot
be a bonanza, not a source of profit but the same
should not be a pittance-
1999 ACJ 10 (SC)
13- Foreign citizen- pound or dollar- rate of exchange-
the rate prevailing on the date of award should be
granted- 2002 ACJ 1441 (SC) – Patricia Jean Mahajan
followed
2011 ACJ 2677,
But also see 2016 ACJ 1262 (Ker)
14- Receipt of income in foreign currency- Pound- Dollar-
amount of compensation is required to be awarded at
prevalent rate of conversion- 2012 ACJ 349
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.31
32. 15- Whether the dependents of agriculturist is entitled
for prospective income- Held- Yes-
2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) – Santosh Devi
16- Compensation- determination of – death of the owner of
transport company- was managing the company- can be
managed by the manager- in fact, manager was appointed
and paid Rs.10,000- SC awarded compensation on that
basis and not on the basis of actual income of the
deceased.
2012 (3) SCC 613 – Yogesh Devi.
17- SC granted 100% increase in the actual income of the
deceased and deducted only 1/10 amount as personal
expenditure.
2012 ACJ 2131 (SC) -N.I. A. Com. v/s Dipali.
18- No proof of income- In such case, compensation should
be assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable at
relevant time.
2012 ACJ 28 (SC)- Govind Yadav. -When
deceased was working in the unorganized sector,
his LR cannot be compeled to produce proof with
respect to income of deceased. In such a
situation, minimum wages shall be taken into
consideration.
Sanjay Kumar v/s Ashok Kumar, 2014(5) SCC 330.
19- Future income in the case where age of deceased is
more than 50? - whether can be considered?- Held- yes
but only in exceptional cases.- K.R. Madhusudhan v/s
Administrative Officer, 2011 ACJ 743
20- Best example of the case where injured was a
government servant and met with accident but because
of accident he did not suffer any salary loss- good
observations of House of Lords, reported in 1912 AC
496.
2013 ACJ 79 – para 20.,
In Lt. Colonel Anoop malhotra v/s Chhatar
Singh, 2014 ACJ 1991 (Raj), a case of Lt. Colonel
who after the accident declared unfit to be Lt.
Colonel and was posted as Colonel in Civil Wings.
Inspite of the fact that his income did not
decrease, compensation under the other heads
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.32
33. allowed.
21- Government servant- injury case- what should be the
basis for computation of amount of compensation?-
Whether multiplier of 5 would be applied or 25% income
should be considered? - Two Views – First says that
multiplier of 5 would be applicable- Dahyabhai Parmar
v/s Ramavtar sharam, reported in 2006 (4) GLR 2844 and
case reported in 1993 (2) GLR 1046- whereas second
view says that 25% of the salary income should be
considered- Mohanbhai Gemabhai v/s. Balubhai
Savjibhai, reported in 1993(1) GLR 249 and 2013 ACJ 79
– para 20.
22- In the fatal accident cases Rupees One lac may be
granted under the head of consortium and loss of
estate, each and Rupees 25K be given under the head of
funeral expenditure.
2013 ACJ 1403 (SC – FB) Rajesh v/s Rajinder
Singh. Followed also in Kalpanaraj v/s TSRTC,
2014 ACJ 1388 (SC). Also followed in Kala Devi
v/s Bhagwan Das Chauhan, 2014 ACJ 2875 (SC). For
decision of quantum matter is referred to larger
bench in case of Shashikala v/s Gangalakshmamma,
2015 ACJ 1239 (SC).
Hon'ble Three Judges of (FB) Supreme Court
in the case of Munna Lal Jain v/s Vipin kumar
Sharma, reported in 2015 ACJ 1985 has held that
LR self employed (Pandit) deceased are entitled
for compensation calculated on the basis of
future prospect. - 2015 ACJ 1985.
23- In the case of Jiju Kuruwila v/s Kunjujamma Mohan,
2013 ACJ 2141 (SC), it is held that each child of the
deceased is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- under the head
of loss of love and affection.
24- Death of Agriculturist- Determination of compensation-
Guideline given.
2013 ACJ 1481
25- Accident of Film/TV actress- Guideline for
compensation and medical bills
2013 ACJ 2161 (SC) – Rekha Jain v/s N.I.Com.
26- Fatal Accident- Business man- Claimants did not
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.33
34. adduced any evidence with respect to the future income
of the claimant. - Not entitled for it.
2013 ACJ 2269 (Ori)
27- Principle for assessment of compensation in the case
where minor has sustained disability- guideline.
2013 ACJ 2445 (SC) – Mallikarjun v/s Division
Manager.
28- Student of Engineering- Fatal- SC assessed compassion
to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs.
2013 ACJ 2860 (SC) - Radhakrishna v/s Gokul
29- Rs.1,25,000/- is awarded under the head of PSS and
Future Attendance Charges.
2014 ACJ 23 (Guj) – Shaileshkmar Natwarji Thakore
30- Paraplegia- in such case disability shall be
considered as 100%.
2014 ACJ 107 (P&H),2014 ACJ 595 (HP)
31- Unborn Child- death of- amount of compensation-
guidelines.
2014 ACJ 353(Mad).
32- Injury to Advocate- Calculation of loss of Income.
2014 ACJ 617 (SC) – Manjegowda, 2014 ACJ 653 (SC)
Sanjay Kumar v/s Ashok Kumar
33- Quantum of – assessment of loss of Leave in the case
of government servant- principles laid down.
2014 ACJ 1090
34- Quantum – Assessment in the fatal case - Ratio laid
down in the case of Rajesh v/s Rajbir 2013 ACJ 1403
(SC) qua consortium, funeral expenditure etc is
followed – 2014 ACJ 1261 (SC) - Savita v/s Bindar
Singh. Also see 2014 ACJ 1565 (SC) – Anjani Singh v/s
Salauddin.
35- Whether 1/3 amount under the head of personal
expenditure can be deducted from the notional income
(of Rs.3,000/-) of a housewife?- Held- No. Good
discussion.
2104 ACJ 1817
36- Public Document- Income Tax Certificate issued by C.A.
(Chartered Accountant) - whether same is admissible in
evidence as same is public document?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 2348 (Sikkim)
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.34
35. 37- Interest –income tax- TDS- guideline
2007 ACJ 1897 (GUJ)
Above referred guideline shall now not be
made applicable as there is an amendment in the
Income Tax Act, Section 194-A(3)(ix).
2016 ACJ 1231 (Chh)
38- Income Tax- Deduction from the amount of compensation-
interest received on the awarded amount of
compensation, amounting to more than 50,000/- Tribunal
can deduct TDS on the said amount of accumulated
interest?- Held- No- Tribunal can deduct TDS only if
the amount of interest for the financial year payable
to each claimant exceeds Rs. 50000/- 2012 ACJ 1157
(MP).
In the year 2013, amendment came to made in
Section 169 Income Tax Act, and now same is made
taxable.
39- Claimants are entitled for entire pay package, which
is for the benefit of the family is to be taken into
consideration.
2008 ACJ 614 (SC)- Indira Srivastava
2009 ACJ 2161 (SC)- Saroj
40- M.V. Act- C.P.C.1908, u/s 2- illegitimate minor son is
entitled to get any amount of compensation? -Held-
Yes.
2012 ACJ 2322 (Chh).
41- Interest- Penal interest- whether imposition of higher
rate interest with retrospective effect is legal? -
Held- No. - If awarded amount is not deposited with in
time allowed, reasonable enhanced rate of interest may
be imposed, payable from the date till the date of
payment but not retrospectively.
2012 ACJ 2660. SC Judgments followed.
42- Loss of academic year- what should be amount of
compensation- Held- Rs.50,000/-.2012 AAC 3126.
43- Death of house wife- quantum should be decided on the
basis of notional income i.e. 3,000/- p.m.- 1/3 amount
is not required to be deducted as notional income is
assessed.
2013 ACJ 453 (Del)- SC judgments followed.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.35
36. 43- Allowances like D.A., contribution of employer towards
P.F etc are part and parcel of the income of deceased?
- held- yes.
2013 ACJ 504 (Del), 2013 ACJ 1441 (SC) – Vimal
Kumar v/s Kishore Dan.
44– Income certificate issued by Block Development officer
– is public document and can be relied upon without
calling upon BDO in the witness box.
2015 ACJ 2575 (Sik)
HOME
11. Driving Licence:-
1- Whether the verification report of driving licence
issued by District Transport Officer is a public
document and can be relied upon?- held- no- unapproved
verification report obtained by a private person
cannot be treated as public document
2011 ACJ 2138 (DEL)
2- IC took defense that driver was not holding the valid
licence to drive- IC did not examine any witness in
this regard- mere reliance on the exhibited driving
licence- marking of exhibit does not dispense with the
proof of document- IC held liable
AIR 1971 SC 1865, 2011 ACJ 1606 ((P&H)
3- Whether IC is liable even if the driver had forged
driving licence?- held- yes-mere fact of licence being
forged is not enough to absolve the IC from liability
2004 ACJ 1 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1611 (HP)
4- Driving licence- Tribunal exonerated IC, relying upon
the photo copy of the it- none of the parties have
proved the contents of photocopy of the licence-
whether Tribunal erred in exonerating IC?- held- yes-
as photocopy of licence was not duly proved
2011 ACJ 1461 (MP), 2011 ACJ 1606 (P&H ) – 1971
SC 1865 relied upon
5- Whether IC is liable even if the driver had forged
driving licence?- held- yes-mere fact of licence being
forged is not enough to absolve the IC from liability
2004 ACJ 1 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1611 (HP)
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.36
37. 6- Driving licence- DL issued on 7.8.79- renewed for the
period between 18.11.89 to 17.11.92- again renewed for
the period between 27.7.95 to 17.11.98- accident
occurred on 30.9.94- whether IC can avoid its
liability on the ground that driver was not having
valid and effective DL on the date of accident?- held-
no- word ‘effective licence’ used u/s 3 of Act, can’t
be imported to section 149(2)- breaks in validity or
tenure of DL does not attract provisions for
disqualification of the driver to get DL- IC held
liable
2011 ACJ 2337 (ALL)
7- DL- IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that
DL was renewed by RTO clerk and not by authorized
officer of RTO- IC failed to examined the responsible
officer of RTO to prove its case- whether IC is
liable- held- yes
2011 ACJ 2385 (J&K)
8- Following principles/guideline laid down by Full Bench
of SC in Para no. 108 in the case of N.I. Com. v/s
Swaran Singh, reported in 2004 (1) JT 109 = 2004 (1)
GLH 691 (SC)- (also see Point No- 103)
(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
providing compulsory insurance of vehicles
against third-party risks is a social welfare
legislation to extend relief by compensation to
victims of accidents caused by use of motor
vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance
coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount
object and the provisions of the Act have to be
so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a
claim petition filed u/s. 163A or Sec. 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , inter alia, in terms
of Sec. 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g.
disqualification of the driver or invalid driving
licence of the driver, as contained in sub-sec.
(2)(a)(ii) of Sec. 149, has to be proved to have
been committed by the insured for avoiding
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.37
38. liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or
invalid driving licence or disqualification of
the driver for driving at the relevant time, are
not in themselves defences available to the
insurer against either the insured or the third
parties. To avoid its liability towards the
insured, the insurer has to prove that the
insured was guilty of negligence and failed to
exercise reasonable care in the matter of
fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding
use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one
who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant
time.
(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to
avoid their liability must not only establish the
available defence(s) raised in the said
proceedings but must also establish "breach" on
the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden
of proof wherefore would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how
the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as
the same would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on
the part of the insured concerning the policy
condition regarding holding of a valid licence by
the driver or his qualification to drive during
the relevant period, the insurer would not be
allowed to avoid its liability towards the
insured unless the said breach or breaches on the
condition of driving licence is/are so
fundamental as are found to have contributed to
the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in
interpreting the policy conditions would apply
"the rule of main purpose" and the concept of
"fundamental breach" to allow defences available
to the insurer u/s. 149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken
reasonable care to find out as to whether the
driving licence produced by the driver (a fake
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.38
39. one or otherwise), does not fulfill the
requirements of law or not will have to be
determined in each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven
by a person having a learner's licence, the
insurance companies would be liable to satisfy
the decree.
(ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted u/s. 165 read
with Sec. 168 is empowered to adjudicate all
claims in respect of the accidents involving
death or of bodily injury or damage to property
of third party arising in use of motor vehicle.
The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted
to decide the claims inter se between claimant or
claimants on one side and insured, insurer and
driver on the other (this view is followed in the
case of KUSUM- see point no- 101). In the course
of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to
decide the availability of defence or defences to
the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the
power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter
se between the insurer and the insured. The
decision rendered on the claims and disputes
inter se between the insurer and insured in the
course of adjudication of claim for compensation
by the claimants and the award made thereon is
enforceable and executable in the same manner as
provided in Sec. 174 of the Act for enforcement
and execution of the award in favour of the
claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act
the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the
insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 149(2)
read with sub-sec. (7), as interpreted by this
Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the
insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured
for the compensation and other amounts which it
has been compelled to pay to the third party
under the award of the Tribunal. Such
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.39
40. determination of claim by the Tribunal will be
enforceable and the money found due to the
insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a
certificate issued by the Tribunal to the
Collector in the same manner u/s. 174 of the Act
as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will
be issued for the recovery as arrears of land
revenue only if, as required by sub-sec. (3) of
Sec. 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit
the amount awarded in favour of the insurer
within thirty days from the date of announcement
of the award by the Tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-sec. (4) with the
proviso thereunder and sub-sec. (5) which are
intended to cover specified contingencies
mentioned therein to enable the insurer to
recover the amount paid under the contract of
insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken
recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to
claims and defences of the insurer against the
insured by relegating them to the remedy before
regular Court in cases where on given facts and
circumstances adjudication of their claims inter
se might delay the adjudication of the claims of
the victims".
9- The effect of fake license has to be considered in
the light of what has been stated by the Hon’ Supreme
Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla V/s. Kamla
and Ors., 2001 4 JT 235. Once the license is a fake
one the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake
license. It was observed in Kamla's case (supra) as
follows:
"12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that
a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit
stripped off merely on account of some officer
renewing the same with or without knowing it to
be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers
any Licensing Authority to "renew a driving
licence issued under the provisions of this Act
with effect from the date of its expiry". No
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.40
41. Licensing Authority has the power to renew a fake
licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made
cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any
counterfeit document showing that it contains a
purported order of a statutory authority would
ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that
other persons including some statutory
authorities would have acted on the document
unwittingly on the assumption that it is
genuine".
10- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 15, 149 - liability of
insurance company - Tribunal opined that respondent-
insurance company was not liable to indemnify insured
- no valid and effective driving licence - nor renewal
of driving licence - whether to be considered as
violation of terms of insurance policy - held, it was
found that driver of vehicle was not having valid
licence on date of accident as licence was not renewed
within thirty days of its expiry - renewal after 30
days will have no retrospective effect - there is a
breach of condition of contract - insurance company
will have no liability in present case - order of
Tribunal as well as High Court upheld
2008(8) SCC 165 –Ram Babu Tiwari
11- (A)- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 149(1) - motor
accident claim - liability of insurer - third party
risk - Tribunal held that accident was due to rash and
negligent driving of the scooter by driver and granted
Rs. 3,01,500 as compensation with interest at 9% per
annum in favour of the claimants and against the
second respondent-owner of the scooter and appellant-
insurance company - whether insurance company could be
held liable to pay the amount of compensation for the
default of the scooterist who was not holding licence
for driving two wheeler scooter but had driving
licence of different class of vehicle in terms of S.
10 of the Act - held, where the insurers relying upon
the provisions of violation of law by the assured,
take an exception to pay the assured or a third party,
they must prove a willful violation of the law by the
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.41
42. assured - provisions of sub-sec. (4) and (5) of S. 149
of the Act may be considered as to the liability of
the insurer to satisfy the decree at the first
instance - liability of the insurer to satisfy the
decree passed in favour of a third party is also
statutory.
11-(B)-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 10(2) - motor
accident claim - liability of insurer - appellant
insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the
amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause
of death in road accident which had occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of scooterist who
admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive
the vehicle on the day of accident - scooterist was
possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was
driving totally different class of vehicle which act
of his is in violation of S. 10(2) of the Act
2008(12) SCC 385 – Zahirunisha
12- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 149 - Constitution of
India - Art. 136 - extent of liability of insurer -
motor vehicle accident caused by driver possessing
fake license at relevant time - Tribunal rejecting the
insurer's liability - validity - driver, brother of
owner of said vehicle - held, holding of fake license
not by itself absolves insurer of its liability - but
insurer has to prove that owner of vehicle was aware
of fact that license was fake and still permitted
driver to drive - on facts, insurer liability to pay
compensation contradicted - thus, balance amount of
claimant and amount already paid by insurer to
claimants to be recovered from owner and driver of
vehicle
2008 (3) SCC 193- Prem Kumari v/s Prahlad Dev
13- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 149(2)(a)(ii) - motor
accident - liability of insurer - in claim petition,
Tribunal held that Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation - licence of driver was not issued by a
competent authority - contention of insurer that by
employing a driver with invalid driving licence owner
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.42
43. insured has breached the condition of S. 149(2)(a)(ii)
- held, owner had satisfied himself that the driver
had a licence and was driving completely there was no
breach of S. 149(2)(a)(ii) - if the driver produces a
driving licence, which on the fact of it looks
genuine, owner is not expected to find out whether the
licence has in fact been issued by a competent
authority or not - therefore, insurance company would
not be absolved of its liability - in order to avoid
its liability, insurer has to prove that the insured
was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise
reasonable case in the matter of fulfilling the
condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a
duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified
to drive at the relevant time
Lal Chand v/s O.I.Com -2006(7) SCC 318
14- (A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - u/s. 2(10) 3-9, 10, 14-
16, 19-21, 23, 27, 147, 149, 163A, 165, 166 and 168 -
Liability of insurer - Breach of condition of
insurance contract - Absence, fake or invalid driving
licence of driver - Disqualification of driver - Case
Law analyzed - Principles stated - Held that
provisions of compulsory insurance against third party
risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief
of compensation to victims of accidents - Mere
absence, fake or invalid driving licence or
disqualification of the driver are not in themselves
the defences available to the insurer - The insurer
has to prove negligence and breach of policy
conditions - The burden of proof would be on the
insurer - Even when the insurer proves such breach of
policy conditions in above circumstances, insurer will
have to prove that such breach was so fundamental that
it was responsible for cause of accident, otherwise,
insurer will be liable - If the driver has Learner's
licence, insurer would be liable.
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - u/s. 165, 149(2), 168,
174 - The Tribunal in interpreting the policy
conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and
concept of "fundamental breach" to allow the defences
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.43
44. available to the insurer - Further held that powers of
Tribunal are not restricted to only decide claims
between claimants and insured or insurer and/or
driver, it has also powers to decide the disputes
between insured and insurer and when such dispute is
decided, it would be executable u/S. 174 as it applies
to claimants - No separate proceedings are required -
Even when insurer is held not liable, it will satisfy
the award in favour of claimants and can recover from
the insured u/S. 174 of the Act.-
2004(1) GLH 691(SC)- N.I.A. Com v/s Swaran Singh.
15- Contention that driver of offending vehicle was not
holding valid licence at the time of accident and same
was renewed after the date of accident- whether IC is
liable- Held- yes
2011 ACJ 2468- 2004 ACJ -1 and 2001 ACJ 843
( both SC) followed.
16- U/s 149(2) (a) (ii) and 149 (4)- driving licence-
policy- willful breach- burden of proof- on whom- Held
on IC- it is for the IC to prove that driver did not
hold the DL to drive the class of vehicle or DL was
fake and breach was conscious and willful on the part
of insured to avoid its liability.
2012 ACJ 1268 (Del). Various SC decisions
referred to.
17- Driving licence- DL expired before the date of
accident and renewed thereafter- clause in police
provides that a person who holds or has held and not
been disqualified from holding an effective driving
licence is entitled to drive vehicle- whether IC is
liable in such case- Held- yes
2012 ACJ 1566 (P & H)
18- DL- driver was not holding valid DL at the time of
accident- owner not examined by IC- Whether IC can be
held liable- Held- yes. Swaran Singh followed.
2012 ACJ 1891, 2012 ACJ 1946
19- Non-possession of valid licence by scooter rider,
cannot be held to have contributed to accident when IC
has failed to examine the driver of offending vehicle.
2012 ACC 2635 (Del) and 2012 AAC 2895 (Mad) – SC
judgments followed.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.44
45. 20- Production of fake licence by driver- owner verified
it and found it genuine- whether in such case, IC can
avoid its liability-held- No.
2012 AAC 2636 (Del)
21- Liability of insurer - Deceased died in mini auto
accident - Driver of offending vehicle had licence to
drive light motor vehicle/LMV and not transport
vehicle - Breach of condition of insurance apparent on
face of record - Finding of fact arrived at that
vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods
vehicle is not correct as driving licence had been
granted for period of 20 years and not for period of 3
years - Insurer therefore directed to deposit
compensation amount with liberty to recover same from
owner and driver of vehicle.
2009 SC 2151- Angad Kol
22- Whether the order of pay and recover can be passed by
Tribunal, when there is dispute with respect to
endorsement in the licence?- Held- Yes
2013 ACJ 487, at page No. 591 (para. 17).
23- Fake driving licence- IC not liable to pay
compensation.
2013 ACJ 2129 (SC) – U.I.I.Com v/s Sujata Arora.
But Hon'ble DB of Gujarat High Court in the
case of N I A Com. Ltd. V/s Nafis Ahmed Abdul
Razaq Ansari, reported in 2015 ACJ 1955 has held
that as per the ratio laid down in the case of
Swaran Singh, IC did not examine owner or driver
of the vehicle and adduced no evidence to prove
that owner had knowledge that driver is having a
fake licence or owner failed to take reasonable
care in employing a qualified and competent
driver having valid licence – Held IC failed to
discharge above referred burden and held
responsible to pay compensation.
24- Driver of Transport Corporation- appointed only after
due process – was also given training - worked for
about 6 years - after the accident, it is found that
he was holding fake licence- whether under this
circumstances, Corporation can held liable on the
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.45
46. ground that it has failed it's duty to verify the
proper fact before employing such driver- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 2440 (SC)- Pepsu Road Transport Corp.
v/s N.I.Com.
25- Whether in a claim petition preferred u/s 163A or an
application u/s 140, insurer is allowed to raise
dispute qua Section 149(2) of the Act- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 1 (Ker)- relied on 2010 ACJ 1896 (Chahan
Harising Padamsing)
U/s 140 – 2014 ACJ 71 (J&K)
26- Learner's Licence- Driver of the car was having
Learner's Licence at the time of accident - he then
obtained permanent licence - Learner's Licence gets
validity from the date he got Learner's Licence- Even
no mentioning of Sign 'L' does not make any
difference.
2013 ACJ 1041
27- DL- Fake DL- IC adduced no evidence to prove that
insured committed willful default of IP- whether IC
can seek to avoid its liability-held- No. Swaran Singh
is followed- Copy is available in the folder.
2012 ACJ 2797.
28- IC took defense that driver was not holding the valid
licence to drive- IC did not examine any witness in
this regard- mere reliance on the exhibited driving
licence- marking of exhibit does not dispense with the
proof of document- IC held liable
AIR 1971 SC 1865, 2011 ACJ 1606 ((P&H)
29- Driver was holding licence to ply ‘light motor
vehicle’- drove ‘pick up jeep’ which is transport
vehicle- whether IC is liable- held- no- w.e.f
29.03.2001, no person can said to hold an effective
driving licence to drive transport vehicle if he only
holds a licence entitling him to drive ‘light motor
vehicle’- when there is no endorsement on driving
licence to drive transport vehicle, IC is not liable
2008 ACJ 721 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2115 (HP), 2014 ACJ
1128. But see 2014 ACJ 1117- Tractor- whether Non
transport vehicle or not – which kind of licence
is required.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.46
47. 30- Driving licence- liability of IC- ‘light motor
vehicle’- driver had licence to ply auto rickshaw and
was driving auto rickshaw delivery van, which caused
accident-Tribunal held that driver was not holding
valid licence- whether sustainable- held- no- further
held that use of vehicle for carriage of goods does
not take the auto rickshaw outside the scope and
definition of ‘light motor vehicle’, which includes a
transport vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not
exceed permissible limit of 7500kgs- lastly held that
driver was holding valid licence to drive and IC is
liable
2011 ACJ 1592 (ORI), 2014 ACJ 1037, 2014 ACJ
2148, 2014 ACJ 2259 (All), 2014 ACJ 2471 (Guj),
2014 ACJ 2703 (P&H), 2016 ACJ 1042 (AP)
31- U/S 149(2), (4) and ( 5) of MV Act- terms of IP – IC
has right to contest on all grounds including
negligence and quantum - whether valid –held- no- IC
can challenged the award only on the points available
to it u/s 149 of the Act
2011 ACJ 2253 (P&H)
32- IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground that
driver was not holding valid licence- if the licence
of the driver had lapsed that itself is not a proof
that he was disqualified from driving or he was
debarred from driving said vehicle- IC held liable- SC
judgment followed.
2012 ACJ 2025 (KAN)
33- DL – IC failed to prove that driver not having valid
licence- IC held liable to pay.
2012 AAC 3206.
34- Fake DL- report of Transport Authority was not proved
in accordance with law and excluded from evidence-
order of pay and recover passed.
2012 AAC 3344 (Del), Beer Pal v/s Arvind Kumar.
2012 AAC 3366 (Del), O.I.Com. v/s Pritam Kumar
Burman.
35- Endorsement on licence- defence of- whether can be
allowed at the stage of 140?- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 598.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.47
48. 36- International Driving Licence – Since such licence is
not endorsed by the Competent Licencing Authority, IC
cannot be held responsible but order of Pay and
Recover passed.
2015 ACJ 2502 (P&H).
HOME
12. Private Investigator:-
1- Whether the verification report of driving licence
issued by District Transport Officer is a public
document and can be relied upon?- held- no- unapproved
verification report obtained by a private person
cannot be treated as public document.
2011 ACJ 2138 (DEL)
2- Passenger stated before the investigator that he was
fare paying passenger- said report not produced by IC
along with reply- claimant had no opportunity to rebut
the said document- Tribunal relied upon the report of
investigator- order sustainable- held- no-as insurance
Com has failed to establish breach of policy
2011 ACJ 1688 (MP)
HOME
13. Helper- Cleaner- Coolie:-
1- Risk of cleaner engaged on goods vehicle is covered by
proviso (i) (c) of section 147(1) of MV Act? Held-
yes- insurance company is held liable to pay
compensation to the cleaner.
2005 ACJ 1323(SC), 2007 ACJ 291(AP), 2011 ACJ
1868 (AP), 2014 ACJ 1776 (Ori)
But for the case of cleaner of bus please
see- 2014 ACJ 1739 (AP) – IC held liable.
2- Helper- Act Policy- whether, helper can be treated as
passenger?- Held- No. SC judgment followed.
2012 ACJ 2554 (GAU).
3- Goods vehicle- Cleaner sustained injuries- he filed
claim petition under the M.V. Act- whether, IC is
liable?- Held- Yes but only to an extent of amount of
compensation admissible under the W.C. Act.
2013 ACJ 1025.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.48
49. 4- Death of helper- excavator dashed with the pillar and
helper died because, pillar fell on the helper- IC
sought to avoid its liability on the ground that
helper is the employee of the hirer and therefore, IC
is not liable – Whether sustainable- held – No - As
deceased was not hired on vehicle neither he was
travelling in the said vehicle.
2013 ACJ 1049.
5- 163A- Driver and Cleaner sustained injuries while
unloading goods- Whether claim petition u/s 163A is
maintainable?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 1206.
6- Helper of the public service vehicle is entitled to
recover amount of compensation from IC.
2015 ACJ 1632 (Ori) followed 2013 ACJ 2205 (SC) –
Ramachandra v/s Regional Manager.
HOME
14. Premium and Additional Premium:-
1- Act policy- goods vehicle- payment of additional
premium- whether risk of person engaged in
loading/unloading is covered and IC is liable to pay
amount of compensation? -held- yes
2011 ACJ 1762 (KER)
2- Public risk policy- extent of liability of IC- truck
hitting scooter resulting in death of pillion rider-
premium was paid for public risk liability which was
more than the prescribed for the act liability-
whether in this case liability of IC is limited as per
the act? –held- no- public risk is wider term and
covers entire risk faced by the owner of vehicle-
public risk would cover unlimited amount of risk- IC
is liable-
2010 ACJ 2783 (GUJ), 2011 ACJ 2029 (DEL)
3- Payment of premium was made on 6.12.2003- IC received
payment without there being all details of the vehicle
and issued policy on 29.1.2004 – Accident occurred on
28.1.2004 - whether in such situation IC can be held
liable? -Held – Yes.
2013 ACJ 1344 (J&K)
HOME
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.49
50. 15. Goods as defined u/s 2(13):-
1- Package policy- passenger risk- liability of IC- cow
and calf- animal- cattle- claimant travelling along
with his cattle- whether IC is liable?- held- yes- u/s
2 (13) of MV Act, goods includes, livestock
2011 ACJ 1464 (KAR)
2- Ganesh idol- whether falls with in the definition of
goods- held –yes
2011 ACJ 2091 (KAR)
HOME
16. Goods Vehicle and Gratuitous Passengers:-
1- Goods vehicle- owner/labourers coming back in the same
vehicle after unloading the goods to the particular
destination- accident while in the return journey-
whether IC is liable- held- yes- as claimant can’t be
treated as unauthorized passengers
2008 ACJ 1381(P&H), 2011 ACJ 1550 (P&H)
2- Passenger risk- owner of goods sharing seat with
driver of auto rickshaw as there was no separate seat
available- liability of IC- whether is there violation
of IP?- held- yes- owner alone is liable - order of
pay and recover
2008 ACJ 1741 (SC), 2001 ACJ 1656 (KER)
3- Whether a person who hired a goods carriage vehicle
would come within purview of Sub-sec. 1 of S. 147 of
the Act although no goods of his as such were carried
in the vehicle - claimant-respondent hired an auto
rickshaw which was goods carriage vehicle and he was
sitting by the side of the driver - held, if a person
has been traveling in a capacity other than the owner
of goods, the insurer would not be liable - it is well
settled that term 'any person' envisaged under the
said provision shall not include any gratuitous
passenger - in a three wheeler goods carriage, driver
could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat
- Tribunal and High Court should have held that owner
of vehicle is guilty of breach of conditions of policy
2008(12) SCC 657
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.50
51. 4- Goods Vehicle- Owner paid Rs.50 to cover risk of non-
fare passenger- No evidence that claimant was
travelling in the goods vehicle as gratuitous
passenger- IC held liable to pay amount of compassion.
2014 ACJ 974 (Mad)
5- Goods Vehicle- IC exonerated but Tribunal passed and
order of Pay and Recover- Whether sustainable?- Held-
Yes.
2014 ACJ 1224.
6- Tractor ‘A’ dashed with Tractor ‘B’- 4 passengers of
Tractor ‘B’ got injured- insurance company sought to
avoid its liability on the ground that they were
gratuitous passengers- whether sustainable- held – no-
IC of Tractor ‘A’ is liable as 4 passengers of Tractor
‘B’ were the third party for Tractor ‘A’
2011 ACJ 2463 (MP)
7- Marriage party along with dowry articles in the goods
vehicle- whether gratuitous passengers- held –no- IC
is liable
2011 ACJ 2319 (GUJ), 2012 AAC 3211 (Bom)
But also see 2009(2) SCC 75 – U.I.A.com v/s
Rattani- contrary view by SC- Recent decision of
Gujarat High Court in the case of O.I.Com v.s
Chaturaben Bhurabhai Pipaliya, F.A. 2741 of 2008,
dated 03.04.2013 (MDSJ), 2013 ACJ 2823
8- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147 - liability of
insurer - claim petition filed by respondent, a
labourer, slipped down from trolley of tractor,
allegedly was being driven rashly and negligently by
its driver, came under the wheels thereof injuring his
gallbladder and left thigh, as a result where of he
suffered grievous injuries – tractor was supposed to
be used for agricultural purpose - held, no insurance
cover in respect of trolley - tractor was insured only
for agricultural work, excluding digging of earth and
brick-kiln purpose - thus, claim, not maintainable as
respondent was mere a gratuitous passenger, not
covered under S. 147 - however, considering empowrish
condition and disability, insurer directed to satisfy
the award with right to realize same from owner of
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.51
52. tractor - appeal allowed.
2007 (7) SCC 56
9- Whether IC is liable in a case where passenger were
travelling as gratuitous passengers in the private car
which is having package policy- held Yes -
2012 ACJ 326
10- Whether the owner of goods who were returning after
unloading the goods at proper destination can be
termed as gratuitous passengers?- Held- No.
2012 ACJ 1522, 2012 ACJ 1641 (before loading,
goods vehicle met with accident- IC held liable)
11- Pay and recover order by Tribunal when deceased was
admittedly a gratuitous passenger- whether valid-
Held- yes- as gratuitous passenger is held to third
party.
2012 ACJ 1661(J&K)
12- Goods Vehicle- gratuitous passenger- liability of
insurance company- Held- No.
2012 ACJ 2419
13- Goods Vehicle- Owner paid Rs.50 to cover risk of non-
fare passenger- No evidence that claimant was
travelling in the goods vehicle as gratuitous
passenger- IC held liable to pay amount of compassion.
2014 ACJ 974 (Mad)
14- Comprehensive Policy – Package Policy- IMT 37- Good
Vehicle- Gratuitous Passenger- driver of the vehicle
allowed 2 passengers to board in the vehicle which
turn turtle – IC charged premium for Non-Fare- Paying
Passenger. - Under this circumstances, IC held liable
to pay compensation.
2014 ACJ 2412 (Raj)
15- Gratuitous passengers- good vehicle- Truck stuck in
the road- passengers alighted from truck and while one
of them was pushing the truck he was crushed – whether
he can be termed as gratuitous passenger?- Held- No.
2014 ACJ (HP)
16– Act Policy – Good Vehicle – gratuitous passengers – IC
succeeded in proving that injured and persons who were
travelling in the said vehcile were gratuitous
passengers – whether in such situation an order of pay
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.52
53. and recover can be passed?- Held. NO.
2016 ACJ 557 (Guj) – UII Com. V/s Mahesh
Kanubhai.
17– Claimant hired tempo for purchasing good from the
market – before claimant could buy the good, vehicle
met with an accident- whether in such situation he can
be termed as gratuitous passenger?- Held. N0. IC hled
laible.
2016 ACJ 718 (Guj) – NIA com. V/s Rekhaben B N
Thakkar.
18– 20 to 22 passengers were travelling in the Goods
vehicle – all of them were having negligible
percentage of goods – whether under these
circumstances, Ic can be held responsible to pay
compensation? -Held- No.
2016 ACJ 1205 (Tri) – NI Com v/s Cholleti
Bharatamma, reported in 2008 ACJ 268 (SC)
followed.
HOME
17. Vehicle hired/leased:-
1- Liability of IC- minibus hired by Corporation along
with IP- driver provided by the owner who was supposed
to drive as per the instruction of the conductor, who
is employee of Corporation- accident- whether IC is
liable- held –yes.
2011 ACJ 2145 (SC), 2014 ACJ 1274 (AP) – UII Com
v/s Sharapuram Balavva
2- Owner- Hirer- Lease- Buses hired by Corporation and
plied them on the routes alloted to Corporation. -
Injuries by such buses- Whether IC is liable- Held –
Yes.
2013 ACJ 1593 (FB), 2014 ACJ 1323 (Kar), 2014 ACJ
1432 (AP), but 2014 ACJ 1605 (Mad)- NII Com. v/s
K. Vaijayanthimala., 2015 ACJ 2675 (All), 2011
ACJ 2145 (SC) – UPRTC v/s Rajeshwari, 2015 ACJ 1
(SC) HDFC bank v/s Reshma, 2015 ACJ 2849 (SC) =
2016(2) SCC 382 Karnataka SRTC v/s New India
Assurance Com., 2016 ACJ 485 (AP)
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.53
54. 3- Vehicle on lease- Owner leased his vehicle to State
Department- Driver of owner- met with accident-
Whether State is liable?- Held- Yes- As per Section
2(30), owner of the vehicle includes a person in
possession of vehicle subject to agreement of lease-
State held to owner and held responsible to pay amount
of compassion.
2014 ACJ 893 (Gau)
4- Owner-Hirer – Van hirer by courier company under an
agreement and as per the conditions of the agreement,
owner was required to take comprehensive policy- No
evidence that driver was driving Van under the
direction and supervision of the hirer Courier Com.-
Whether Hirer is liable?- Held- No.
2014 ACJ 1790 (Mad).
5- Truck was taken on hire along with its driver by PWD
for constriction of road – when vehicles was being
driven by driver under the instruction of officer of
PWD, accident occurred – Whether PWD can held
responsible to pay compensation?- Held – Yes.
2015 ACJ 1162 (HP).
HOME
18. Which kind of licence required for
LMV-LGV-HGV-HTV-MGV:-
1- Driver was holding licence to ply ‘light motor
vehicle’- drove ‘pick up jeep’ which is transport
vehicle- whether IC is liable- held- no- w.e.f
29.03.2001, no person can said to hold an effective
driving licence to drive transport vehicle, if he only
holds a licence entitling him to drive ‘light motor
vehicle’- when there is no endorsement on driving
licence to drive transport vehicle, IC is not liable
2008 ACJ 721 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2115 (HP), 2014 ACJ
1128, 2015 ACJ 2070. But see 2014 ACJ 1117-
Tractor- whether Non transport vehicle or not –
which kind of licence is required. Also see 2016
ACJ 221 (Del), 2016 ACJ 952
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.54
55. 2- Driving licence- liability of IC- ‘light motor
vehicle’- driver had licence to ply auto rickshaw and
was driving auto rickshaw delivery van, which caused
accident-Tribunal held that driver was not holding
valid licence- whether sustainable- held- no- further
held that use of vehicle for carriage of goods does
not take the auto rickshaw outside the scope and
definition of ‘light motor vehicle’, which includes a
transport vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not
exceed permissible limit of 7500kgs- lastly held that
driver was holding valid licence to drive and IC is
liable
2011 ACJ 1592 (ORI), 2014 ACJ 1037, 2014 ACJ
2148, 2014 ACJ 2259 (All), 2014 ACJ 2471 (Guj),
2014 ACJ 2703 (P&H), 2015 ACJ 1379 (Mad)
3- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - u/s. 149, 163A, 166 and 170
- Vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle - Driver
was holder of licence to drive LMV - Driver not
holding licence to drive commercial vehicle - Breach
of contractual condition of insurance - Owner of
vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to
verify as to whether driver possessed a valid licence
- Extent of third party liability of insurer - Death
of a 12-year girl in accident - Claimants are from
poor back-ground - After having suffered mental agony,
not proper to send them for another round of
litigation - Insurer directed to pay to claimants and
then recover from the owner in view of Nanjappan's
case [2005 SCC (Cri.) 148].
4- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 10(2) - motor accident
claim - liability of insurer - appellant insurance
company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of
compensation to the claimants for the cause of death
in road accident which had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of scooterist who admittedly had no
valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on
the day of accident - scooterist was possessing
driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving
totally different class of vehicle which act of his is
in violation of S. 10(2) of the Act.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.55
56. 2008(12) SCC 385 – O I Com. Ltd v/s Zahirunisha
(2008 ACJ 1928 (SC)}. - Relying upon above
referred judgment Hon'ble P & H Court has
exonerated IC but passed an order of Pay and
Recover. - 2015 ACJ 1829 (P&H)
5- Death of workman who was sitting on the mudguard- IC
sought to avoid its liability on the ground that
driver was holding License to drive heavy transport
vehicle but he was driving tractor which did not
conform to the particular category- License for
higher category of vehicle will not amount to valid
and effective DL to drive a vehicle of another
category- IC is held not liable-
2012 ACJ 179
6- licence- endorsement on licence- Specific endorsement
to ply a transport vehicle is necessary.
2013 ACJ 487 & 668 – IMP- Relied on 2006 ACJ
1336- Kusum Rai, 2008 ACJ 627 N.I. A.Co. v/s
Prabhulal , 2008 ACJ 721, N.I.Com. v/s Annappa
Irappa Nesaria (wherein it is held that
endorsement is required from 28.03.2001), 2009
ACJ 1141, O.I.Com. v/s Angad Kol (wherein it is
held that for non passenger/ non transport
vehicles, licences are issued for 20 years
whereas for passengers vehicles they are issued
for 3 years only).
7- LMV- whether tractor, pickup van are light motor
vehicle? - Held- yes, as defined u/s 2(21) of the Act.
2013 ACJ 1160, 2014 ACJ – Sudha v/s Dalip Singh
(P&H), 2014 ACJ 2817 (Chh), 2015 ACJ 1899 (Del),
2015 ACJ 2744 (HP) (Pickup van)
7A- M V Act – u/s 3, 2(21), 2(47) – LMV – Transport
Vehicle – Whether driver having licence to drive LMV
has to obtain an endorsement to drive transport
vehicle when such transport vehicle is LMV – issue
referred to Larger Bench.
2016 ACJ 1008 (SC)– Mukund Dewangan v/s O.I. Com.
8- Tractor is LMV and Car /Jeep are also LMV and,
therefore, driver who was holding DL to drive LMV
(Car/Jeep) can also drive Tractor.
2013 ACJ 2679- Ghansham v/s O.I.Com.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.56
57. 9- Tractor – DL- LMV & HTV- Tractor is defined u/s
2(44)- Whether for driving Tractor, separate licence
is required?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 854 (P&H).
10- Badge- Vehicle of same category
2014 ACJ 1180
LMV can be equated with LGV for the purpose
of Driving Licence (DL)? - Held – yes. - Same
cannot be termed as breach of IP.
2014 ACJ 2873 (SC) - Kulwant Singh v/s OI
Com. - S. Iyyappa v/s UII Com, 2013 ACJ 1944
followed. Also see 2015 ACJ (AP), 2015 ACJ 2602
(Ker)
11- DL- LMV – LGV – Accident occurred prior to the
amendment which came into effect from of 21.03.2001 -
Driver was holding DL to drive LMV but was driving LGV
– Whether IC can be held liable?- Held- Yes. - 2008
ACJ 721(SC)- Annappa Irappa Nesaria.
2014 ACJ 1828 (Raj)
12- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - u/s. 149, 163A, 166 and 170
- Vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle - Driver
was holder of licence to drive LMV - Driver not
holding licence to drive commercial vehicle - Breach
of contractual condition of insurance - Owner of
vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to
verify as to whether driver possessed a valid licence
- Extent of third party liability of insurer - Death
of a 12-year girl in accident - Claimants are from
poor back-ground - After having suffered mental agony,
not proper to send them for another round of
litigation - Insurer directed to pay to claimants and
then recover from the owner in view of Nanjappan's
case [2005 SCC (Cri.) 148].
2006(2) GLH 15 (SC) – N.I.A Com v/s Kusum Rai.
Following Kusum Rai judgment, Delhi High
Court in the case of O I Com. v/s Shahnawaz,
reorted in 2014 ACJ 2124 has held that driver of
offending vehicle was possessinng lincence to ply
LMV (Non-transport) but was plying Tata Sumo
registered as Tourist Taxi and, therefore, IC is
not liable to pay compensation.
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.57
58. 13- Liability of IC- to avoid liability, IC had to prove
that owner of the vehicle knew that driver was not
having valid driving licence- Driver was having
licence to ply LMV, MGV and HGV- IC did not led any
evidence to prove that owner knew about driver being
incompetent to ply passenger vehicle.-
2012 AAC 3302 (J & K) - N.I. Com. v/s Mst.
Bakhta., 2014 ACJ 1037
14- Central M.V. Rules- Rule 16- Tractor Driving licence-
Rule 16 provides that every licence issued or renewed
shall be in Form VI which provides for grant of
licence in respect of LMV or Transport Vehicle amongst
other categories but there is no specific entry for
issuance of licence for driving a Tractor. As per
Section 2(44), by definition Tractor is LMV and,
therefore, when driver has licence to ply LMV, he can
also ply Tractor.
2014 ACJ (P&H)
15- DL – Valid DL – IC disputed its liability on the ground
that driver of offending vehicle was holding DL for
driving LMV but actually at the time accident, he was
driving LMV (commercial) – liability to prove that driver
of offending vehicle had no valid DL at the time accident,
is on the shoulder of IC.
2015 ACJ 340 (Del) but also see 2015 ACJ 576 (AP)
16 – Whether a person holding HGV can ply LMV – Held- Yes. As
as per Section 7 of M V Act, a person holding a licence to
drive LMV for atleast one year only is entitled to apply
for HGV licence.
2015 ACJ 2875 (HP)
HOME
19. Avoidance Clause:-
1- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - S. 96 - motor accident -
liability of insurance company - liability of insurer
limited upto Rs. 50,000/- as per limits of policy -
High Court found that insurer was liable upto Rs.
50,000/- but gave direction to pay claimants entire
amount of compensation, but would be entitled to
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.58
59. recover amount excess in its liability from owner of
vehicle - avoidance clause in policy provided that
nothing therein would affect the right of person who
is entitled to indemnification from insurer to recover
under S. 96 of the Act - whether, directions given by
High Court in consonance with terms of policy - held,
considering avoidance clause in policy, the directions
given by High Court are in terms of policy,
2011 ACJ 2878 (SC), Santaben Vankar 2011 (3) GCD
2101 (GUJ)= 2012 AAC 2528
20. Injuries and Disabilities:-
1- Injury case- doctor assessed disability as 75%- doctor
was cross examined at length but nothing adverse was
traced out- Tribunal and HC assessed disability at
50%, without there being any cogent reason- whether
proper- held – no – once doctor has opined that
injured has sustained 75% disability and nothing
adverse was traced out in his cross examination-
Tribunal and HC erred in assessing disability as 50%
2011 ACJ 2466 (SC) D.Sampath versus U.I.I. Com.
Ltd, Rudra versus Divisional Manager, reported
in 2011 SC 2572 =2011 (11) SCC 511.
2- Leg injuries resulted in fracture- Doctor access
disablement as 20-25% by observing that there is
deficiency in the muscle- same was not believed by the
lower Courts by holding that same did not result into
permanent disablement- SC overruled the same
2012 ACJ 1459 (SC) – Manoj Rathod
3- Doctors cannot be called to prove documents with
respect to prolonged treatment unless they create
doubt-
2012 ACJ 1847
4- Whether the disability certificate issued by the
private hospital is admissible in view of Rule 10.2
of the Rajasthan M.V. Rules, 1990- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1236 (Raj)
5- Amputation- Whether the victim is entitled for
compensation under the head of 'permanent
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.59
60. Disablement'- Held- Yes.
2013 ACJ 1935 (SC) – S. Manickam v/s Metropolitan
Transport
6- Arm amputation- Whether claimant is entitled for any
amount under the head of loss of amenities over and
above the loss of earning capacity.
2013 ACJ 2122 (SC) – Neerupam Mohan Mathur v/s
New India I.Com
7- Fracture of Pelvis and Uretha, resulting in impotence-
High amount of compensation granted by SC
2013 ACJ 2131 (SC) – G. Ravindranath v/s E.
Srinivas
8- Amputation- left hand- Calculation of amount of
compensation-
2014 ACJ 648 (SC) (FB) – M.D. Jacob v/s UII Com.,
2014 ACJ 1375 (SC) (FB) – M.K. Gopinathan, 2014
ACJ 1412 (SC) (FB)- Dinesh Singh
9- Fracture Injuries to minor intelligent girl- good
academic career- determination of compensation-
Guideline.
2014 ACJ 1441 (SC) – V. Menka v/s M. Malathi
HOME
21. Review and Recalling:-
1- Whether review is maintainable- held – no – several SC
judgements followed
2011 ACJ 2720, 2012 AAC 3007 (All)- 2011 SCW
2154, 1999 (1) TAC 449, 2013 ACJ 1130, 2013 ACJ
1892 (All), 2014 ACJ 2836 (All), 2015 ACJ 1333
(Mad), 2016 ACJ 517 (ALL)
2 – Whether an award passed by the Tribunal under the
wrong impression or by playing fraud can be recalled?-
Held- Yes. Further held that under this situation, IC
can recover the disbursed amount from the owner of the
vehicle.
2016 ACJ 1210 (Gau)
HOME
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.60