Legal Reference Library

he Kerala high court on Thursday clarified that motor vehicles department (MVD) officials have the power to seize records of a vehicle that is modified or altered from its original specifications. However, such power should be used only in exceptional circumstances, the court said. Justice V Chitambaresh issued the clarification after considering a petition filed by the MVD through government pleader K A Sanjeetha pointing out that any MVD officer has the power to seize or take copies of vehicle records if he believes any offence under the Motor Vehicles Act has been committed as per section 213(5)(d). Moreover, the Motor Vehicle Rules of 1989 further states that MVD officers can exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to them under the Act, it was contended. Top Comment The Roman Catholic Church has the largest number of followers of all denominations and religions, and yet her teachings and doctrines can be clearly exposed as being false. So many sincere people hav......

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...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal Nos. 49-50 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 37534-37535 of 2013) Decided On: 07.01.2016 Appellants: Lakhmi Chand Vs. Respondent: Reliance General Insurance Hon'ble Judges/Coram: T.S. Thakur, C.J.I. and V. Gopala Gowda, J. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Munawwar Naseem, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Garvesh Kabra, Adv. Subject: Consumer Subject: Insurance Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 149(2), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 163A, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 166; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 279, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304A, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 337, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 338, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 427 Cases Referred: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pravinbhai D. Prajapati IV 2010 ...

NCDRC has upheld the repudiation of claim by the insurance company in a case of theft of vehicle on the ground that respondent was not having valid driving licence at the time of incident and he had also not taken ignition keys of the car when he went for urination, hence violating the terms of policy. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Singh Gurjar, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2291, decided on 18-9-2015