Legal Reference Library

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...

In Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether gross negligence in not maintaining particular level of water in the dam by the respondents; that has resulted into damage and destruction to the plantation of the appellants, causing loss of livelihood, could be said to be an 'Act of God'?" It so happened that the respondents had constructed and maintained a dam. 60,000 cusecs of water from this dam was released, which flooded the land of the appellants and destroyed the plantation therein. The Hon'ble court while accepting the State's argument that the water was released in public interest to avert a greater disaster as the excessively heavy rain which is an Act of God had increased water level in the dam to a dangerous level, found merit in the Appellant's argument that not keeping the level of the water low in preparation of rainy season was negligence.

Putting to rest controversy hovering around the entitlement of both husband and wife to allotment of separate residential sites, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that expression “applicant” included “spouse”. The judgment is significant as it means term applicant would cover wife, even if the application for allotment is submitted by the husband alone and vice-versa. Either the husband, or the wife, can be allotted a dwelling unit and not both in terms of specific eligibility condition. The ruling came in a case where the allotment to wife was cancelled as her husband too was an allottee. The court was told only husband, wife or dependent family members could be allotted a plot in a particular urban estate as per eligibility clause 11 of the brochure-cum-application form. The Bench ruled: “We were only required to interpret clause 11… and as we have concluded, on its true and purposive construction, the expression `applicant’ would include and represent; his/her spouse, n...

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 ...

High Court of Australia: In the instant case, the respondent sustained serious spinal injuries which rendered her paraplegic, when she was thrown from the back seat of a car being driven by the appellant who was drunk at the time of the accident. The issue for determination was whether the respondent was contributorily negligent  for choosing to travel in the car driven by the appellant when she ought to have known that he was intoxicated and, secondly, for failing to engage her seatbelt. The trial Judge rejected the contention of the respondent that the appellant’s erratic driving had prevented her from fastening her seatbelt and held that failure to wear a seatbelt constitutes contributory negligence under Section 49 of the Civil Liability Act 1936. The Judge further held that the exception in Section 47(2)(b) of the Act applies in the present case as the respondent could not reasonably be expected to have avoided the risk of riding with the appellant in the circumstances. On ap...

The government must pay for the negligence of its officers and it cannot claim "sovereign immunity" like in the old days, the Supreme Court has stated while imposing compensation on the authorities who failed to register three fishing vessels, causing loss to owners. The vessels were bought by Sancheta Food Products in an auction. They had to be registered under the Merchant Shipping Act for taking them to the high seas for fishing. However, the officers were taking contrary stands regarding the rules applicable to the vessels, causing heavy loss to the firm. It sued the government in the Calcutta high court. It imposed compensation on the government for its "contradictory and dilatory" stands. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the high court judgment. It elaborated on the "vicarious liability" of the state for the actions of its officers and diluted the immunity of the government in negligence cases. Citing earlier decisions rejec...

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While holding Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGI), Chandigarh guilty of medical negligence, NCDRC upheld the order of Chandigarh State Commission and also enhanced the total compensation from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 20 lakh in case of death of a girl due to delay in treatment. The Commission was hearing an appeal filed by the parents of the deceased challenging the order of Chandigarh State Commission vide which the Institute was directed to pay Rs 7 lakh and Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (CTU) to pay Rs 3 lakh to them. The parents of the deceased approached NCDRC for enhancement of compensation awarded by the State Commission. PGI, Chandigarh had also filed appeal before Commission in the matter. The facts of the case are that a schoolgirl aged about 16 years, on her way from her school to residence was crushed by a CTU bus when she was attempting to board it in July 2012. She was admitted into Advance ...

Cited: 1) Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 422 2) Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (Twenty-fourth Edition 2002, edited by Justice G.P. Singh) 3) Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (Tenth Edition, 2001) 4) R. v. Lawrence, [1981] 1 All ER 974 (HL) 5) Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1937] A.C. 576 6) Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 7) Reg v. Idu Beg (1881) 3 All. 776 8) Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra 1968 Mh.L.J. 423 9) Michael Hyde and Associates v. J.D. Williams & Co. Ltd., [2001] P.N.L.R. 233, CA, Sedley L.J. 10) Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, 586' 11) Eckersley v. Binnie, [1988] 18 Con. L.R. 1, 79  12) Halsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth Edition, Vol.30, Para 35) 13) Hucks v. Cole, [1968] 118 New U 469 14) Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority, [1985] 1 All ER 635 (HL) 15) Hunter v. Hanley 1955 SLT 213 at 217...