Legal Reference Library

In The State of Maharashtra V/s. Smt. Kamaladevi Kailashchandra Kaushal, the Bombay High Court after 21 Years hiked compensation amount awarded by MACT. Justice MS Sonak was hearing an appeal filed by the state and others against the MACT order dated August 5, 1995.  In the MACT order, the appellants were directed to jointly pay a compensation of Rs.1,65,000 to the widow, mother and children of the deceased. In the appeal among the points raised before the High Court was whether in the absence of any cross appeal or cross objections on the part of the claimants, the appeal court is entitled to award ‘just compensation’ to the claimants, in the appeal instituted by the owner? Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) the High Court held that section 166 of the MV Act deals with “just compensation” and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made, a party should not be depr...

State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh Vitthal Mule, R/o. Kasheli, Tal. Rajapur, Dist. Ratnagiri JUDGMENT Prakash D. Naik, J. - Heard learned APP for Appellant-State and learned counsel for the Respondent. This appeal has been preferred by invoking Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') against judgment and order dated 16 April 1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajapur in Summary Criminal Case No.224 of 1996. 2. The Respondent-accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC') and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with summary procedure as envisaged under Chapter XXI of Cr.P.C.. By judgment and order dated 16 April 1999, the Trial Court has acquitted the Respondent-accused under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follo...

The Supreme Court, in M/s. Purohit and Company vs. Khatoonbee, has observed that though there is no limitation period to raise a claim for compensation before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it should be done within a reasonable time. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar was considering an appeal against a high court order which had upheld the justiciability of a claim petition filed 28 years after the accident took place on the ground that no period of limitation had been provided for raising a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The bench agreed with the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants, that even though there may no longer be a defined period of limitation for approaching the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to raise a claim for compensation (under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988), yet a claimant must approach a court for raising such a claim within a reasonable time. The only reason stated in the c...

In Sheela O.K. Vs. New India Insurance Company, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decided that When an insurer is impleaded as a party-respondent to the claim petition, as contrasted from merely being a noticee under Section 149(2) of the Act, its rights are significantly different. If the insurer is only a noticee, it can only raise such of those grounds as are permissible in law under Section 149(2). But if he is a party-respondent, it can raise, not only those grounds which are available under Section 149(2), but also all other grounds that are available to a person against whom a claim is made. If the insurer is already a respondent, having been impleaded as a party-respondent, it need not seek the permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to raise grounds other than those mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act.

Sending out a tough message against under-age driving, the Bombay High Court has directed a Lokhandwala resident to shell out Rs 50,000 as costs, if he wants an FIR against his minor son for rash driving quashed. A division bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice Prakash Naik directed Mahesh Chavan to pay the money to Tata Memorial Hospital and Cancer Research Institute, and submit the receipt in order for the criminal proceedings to be dropped. Versova police had lodged an FIR against Chavan's son Nitesh, after he took his father's car for a spin and rammed into a road divider at Lokhandwala in November 2015. Nitesh's friend, who was in the passenger seat, suffered serious injuries and was in hospital for over six months. "We share the concern of the prosecution that a message must go to the society at large," the judges said, adding, "The facts of this case are disturbing in nature. The owner of the vehicle allowed his minor son to drive a four-wheeler ...

Uttarakhand High Court has recently held that a person, who met with accident, in any manner, being an employee, then he may claim compensation under either Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act but he cannot be at liberty to claim such compensation under both the Acts. Justice Servesh Kumar Gupta has dismissed an Appeal filed by Dalbir Lal who already got the compensation under Motor Accidents Claims who approached the Court seeking further compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act for the reason that he met an accident when he had already left his Office and was in the way to reach his home. Dismissing the Appeal the Court held that Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates in so many words regarding claims for compensation of a person, who met with accident, in any manner, being an employee, then he may claim compensation under either Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act but he cannot be at liberty to claim such compensation under both the A...

The Madras High Court has said compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or the interest accruing therein cannot be subjected to tax deducted at source (TDS). A civil revision plea was filed by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Dharmapuri, against an order passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, directing the corporation to deposit the amount deducted as TDS to the MACT claimant. The Hon'ble court said that compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and interest accruing thereon, is to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims and does not have the character of "income". If there is a conflict between a social welfare legislation and a taxation legislation, the social welfare legislation will prevail since it subserves larger public interest. Article referred: http://www.financialexpress.com/article/personal-finance/accident-compensation-cannot-be-subjected-to-tds-madras-hi...

The Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmamma was called upon to decide whether an insurer is absolved of its obligations to the third party under the policy of insurance because the cheque given by the owner of the vehicle towards the premium got dishonoured and subsequent to the accident, the insurer cancelled the policy of insurance. While answering the above question, the Supreme Court held as under; 6. Mr. P.R. Ramasesh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 (owner) supported the view of the High Court. He submitted that on the date of the accident, the policy was subsisting and the liability of the insurer continued and, therefore, the insurer cannot recover the amount paid to the claimants from the insured. 7. Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short, ‘Insurance Act’) provides as under: “64-VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance.- (1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on w...

 The scourge of mofussil courts issuing joint account cheque to victims of motor accident cases, thereby helping the accident case specialist-lawyers withdraw a bulk of the sum as fee, has come to the knowledge of the Madras high court. Directing motor accident claims courts not to issue cheques in favour of any person other than the victim, or in the name of any 'company,' Justice S Vaidhyanathan said: "It has been brought to the attention of this court that in crossed cheques issued to claimants, it is mentioned as "& co." instead of "a/c payee". Such practice has to be avoided by all trial courts and crossing should be made in the cheques only with the endorsement "A/C payee" and not with the endorsement "& co." Threatening courts with dire action if they violated this order, the judge said: "It is made clear that if any violation is brought to the notice of this court, appropriate action will be initiated against ...

KOCHI: Non-wearing of helmet cannot be the reason for fixing negligence on the part of a motorcycle rider in the event of an accident, the Kerala High Court has held. While not wearing a helmet is an offence under Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be the basis for fixing negligence on the part of the rider, a division bench comprising justices PR Ramachandra Menon and Anil K Narendran held. The court considered an appeal filed by PJ Jose of Vadakkekkaran in Kottayam seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs4.76 lakh as the compensation for the death of his son when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a jeep on May 11, 2007. A motor accident tribunal had fixed 25 per cent contributory negligence on the part of the rider citing non-wearing of helmet. Ruling against such fixing of negligence, the judgment authored by justice Ramachandra Menon said, "We find it difficult to agree with the proposition that non-wearing of 'Helmet', though an offence under the relevant...

A Division Bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon and Justice Anil.K Narendran in P.J. Jose & Ors. v. Vanchankal Niyas & Ors [M.A.C.A.No. 2482 of 2009] has held that an accident arising out of non wearing of helmet does not lead to an inference to the case of contributory negligence on the part of the person causing accident, so as to limit his claims arising out of such accident. The deceased, who was a student in Coimbatore met with an accident on 11/05/2007, while travelling in his motor cycle. The accident occurred due to the collision of the motor cycle driven by the deceased with a jeep owned, driven, and insured by respondents 1 to 3 respectively. The deceased died due to the fatal injuries arising out of the accident on the same date. In the claim filed before the tribunal by his legal heirs, his claim was limited by the tribunal due to the fact that he had not put on a helmet at the time of accident and this would result in contributory ...

There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party, the Court said. The Supreme Court in Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance Company Limited has restated its earlier position in Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 2 SCC 244 regarding territorial jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Apex Court Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel held that there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. Context A young teacher from Hoogly died in an accident in 2008. The Tribunal in Kolkata, on his application awarded a compensation of Rs.16, 12,200/-. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company preferred was allowed on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction since the dece...

When several persons are guilty of causing a road accident leading to death or injury, the claim for compensation can be made against each,or all of them. The claimant has a choice. The persons liable can later sue each other for their share of liability after paying the amount to the claimant. This rule was reiterated in the case, Kamlesh vs Attar Singh, by the Supreme Court. A speeding car hit an equally negligent tempo killing a passenger in the latter. His widow, mother and three minor children sued the drivers of both vehicles, the owner of the car and its insurance company. The tribunal found that they were all guilty of 'composite negligence' and they should pay Rs 5.81 lakh to the family. The tempo driver appealed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which set aside the award made by the tribunal. The family appealed to the Supreme Court and it restored the order of the tribunal, stating that the high court had not assessed the evidence properly.