Motor Accident Claim Petition Judgments

MOTOR VEHICLE

ACT, 1988

IMPORTANT

JUDGMENTS

Compiled by Hanif. S. Mulia

INDEXSr.No.

Particulars PageNo

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

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


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


MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1. Tor t :-

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


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 KalabhaiMaganbhai 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


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 toproduce 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 drawsany adverse inference against insured-

2012 ACJ 107- 1985 ACJ 397 SC followed


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.


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)


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,


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-


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


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)


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


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 GaddamSwami, 2013 ACJ 2622 (Ker) – O.I. Com. v/s P.P.Nandanan.


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


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 -


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.


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.


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).


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


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.


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


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. W orkmen 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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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.


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 decisionsreferred 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) – SCjudgments followed.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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 forLMV-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


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.


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.


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)














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



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


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


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


22 Employees’ State Insurance Act andEmployee's Compensation Act :-

1- E.S.I. Act u/s 28, 53 and 61- bar u/s 53 and 61

against receiving of compensation under any other Law-

employee of Telecom Dept., insured under E.S.I. Act-

he was traveling in department's jeep – met with

accident- fatal- contention raised that in view of the

bar imposed u/s 53 and 61 of E.S.I Act, claim petition

under M.V is not maintainable- whether sustainable-

held- no- section 28 does not cover accidental death

while traveling in a vehicle on road and therefore

claim petition under M.V. Act is maintainable

2012 ACJ 233, 2016 ACJ 265 (P&H)

2- Employee insured under the ESI Scheme- Whether claim

petition under the M.V. Act or W.C. Act is

maintainable?- Held- No.

2013 ACJ 865

But claim petition is maintainable when it

is not filed against employer. ESI Act does not

bar right to claim compensation against third

party under the MV Act.

2013 ACJ 1581

3- Employee's Compensation Act – Driver of ST bus – his

LR can file claim petition either before MACT or under

Employee's Compensation but not under both.

2015 ACJ 20 (Guj) - Gulamrashul Malek v/s/

GSRTC, Guidelines in this regar – 2015 ACJ 1936

(Mad)

4- Ex Gratia payment can be deducted from the final

amount of compensation?- Held- No.

2015 ACJ 168 (MP)

HOME

23. Life Insurance:-1- Life Insurance- Double accident Benefit- Whether can

be allowed- Held- Yes

2014 ACJ 1237

HOME


24. Medical Reimbursement:-1- Medical reimbursement- claimant got the same as he was

medically insured- whether IC is under statutory duty

to pay medical bill, though same is reimbursement by

the claimant- held – no- IC is not statutorily liable

to pay medical bill as same is reimbursed under

medical policy

2011 ACJ 2447 (DEL), 2016 ACJ 807 (Ker)

HOME

25. Family Pension:-1- Quantum- Medical Policy- whether amount received under

the medical policy is deductible from the amount of

compensation? - Held -No.- SC decisions referred.

2012 ACJ 1114 (Ker) – Family pension is also like

wise- 2012 ACJ 1197(Bom), 2015 ACJ 1195 (Cal)

26. Compassionate Appointment:-1- Compassionate appointment given to widow- whether

Tribunal can deduct dependency benefit on that count?-

Held- No.

2012 (2) GLH 246.- Girishbhai Devjibhai, - 2012

AAC 3065 (All)- SC judgments followed. - 2013 ACJ

129 (P&H). 2014 ACJ 822 (Guj)

2- In the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of LIC v. L.R. of deceased

Naranbhai, reported in 1972 GLR 920, it is held that

the amounts received by the claimant on account of the

insurance taken by him for his own benefit and with

his own money, is a collateral benefit and such

benefit could not be deducted from the compensation

amount. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case

viz. Dayaljibhai Manibhai Patel v. Erachsha Dhanjisha

Variyava in First Appeal No. 402 of 1986 has decided

on 28th July, 2006, had taken a same view.

HOME


27. Pillion Rider:-1- Pillion rider- Act Policy- liability of IC- death of

pillion rider- IC disputed its liability on the ground

that policy was statutory policy and it did not cover

the risk of pillion rider- statutory policy covers the

risk of TP only and it did not cover risk of pillion

rider and gratuitous passenger

2003 ACJ 1 (SC), 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), 2009 ACJ 104

(SC)

2- One of the two pillion riders injured- Tribunal held

that both drivers were negligent in causing accident

and their respective blame being 75:25 between bus

driver and moped- whether pillion rider is responsible

for accident?- held- yes- as he had violated traffic

rules- 25% deducted from awarded amount

2011 ACJ 1766 (MAD) but see 2013 ACJ 1227 ((HP),

2013 ACJ 2008 (MP), 2014 ACJ 1287 (Raj), 2014 ACJ

1762, 2014 ACJ 2425 (P&H), 2014 ACJ 2699 (Raj),

2014 ACJ 2808 (P&H), 2015 ACJ (P&H), 2016 ACJ 936

(P&H), 2016 ACJ 1273 (Cal)

3- Act policy- statutory policy- pillion rider- whether

IC is liable- held – no- such policy covers the TP

risk only and not of pillion rider- IC held not liable

2003 ACJ 1 (SC), 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), 2009 ACJ 104

(SC) But when extra premium is paid (package

policy) to cover the risk of pillion rider IC is

liable to pay to pillion rider also

2011 ACJ 2100(KAR)-

4- Pillion rider of motor cycle- package policy – whether

IC is liable- held- yes – as insured had paid premium

to cover the damage to the vehicle and pillion rider

2011 ACJ 2100 (KAR)

5- Motor accident - insurance claim - deceased was

travelling as a pillion rider - fell down from the

scooter and succumbed to the injuries - claim

repudiated by insurance company on ground that

deceased being a gratuitous passenger and insurance

policy did not cover risk of injury or death of such

passenger - whether pillion rider on a scooter would


be a third party within the meaning of S. 147 of the

Act - held, liability of the insurance company in a

case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider

of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of

premium is paid for covering his/her risk (ii) the

legal obligation arising u/s. 147 of the Act cannot be

extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle

or the pillion rider (iii) the pillion rider in a two

wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when

the accident has taken place owing to rash and

negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of

the driver of another vehicle

2008(7) SCC 428

6- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147, 157, 217 - motor

accident - liability of the Insurance Company towards

third party - two wheeler of respondent no. 5 was

insured with the appellant company - however, an

endorsement regarding pillion rider was not included

in the Insurance Contract - two wheeler was sold to

respondent no. 1 during the period of availability of

insurance cover - sale was not intimated to the

Insurance Company - as a result of an accident, the

pillion rider died - compensation awarded by Tribunal

- held, the Act of 1988 is applicable to the case as

the accident took place after the commencement of the

Act, 1988 - the statutory insurance policy did not

cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to

gratuitous passenger - therefore, the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay compensation for the

death of the pillion rider - further, failure to

intimation for the transfer of the vehicle would not

effect third parties claim for compensation

2006(4) SCC 404 –U.I.I.Com v/s Tilak Singh

7- U/s 147(1)- package policy- pillion rider- liability

of IC is sought to be avoided on the ground that no

additional premium has been paid to cover risk of

pillion rider- IRDA in its clarification circular

mentioned that passenger carried in private vehicle

and pillion riders are covered under the terms and

conditions of Slandered Motor Package Policy- When


vehicle is covered under the package policy- IC is to

be held liable

2011 ACJ 2527 (Ker)

8- Two pillion rider- offending tractor dashed with said

bike- Rider of bike could not see the tractor as same

was not having head lights- Tribunal exonerated rider

of bike- whether sustainable?- Held- Yes- Only because

rider of bike had allowed, two pillion rider to travel

on the bike does not lead to infer that rider of bike

had contributed in causing the accident.

2012 ACJ 2678(MP)- 2008 ACJ 393 (MP).

9- Meaning of 'Unnamed Passenger'- would mean pillion

rider and not the driver of two wheeler.

2014 ACJ 101 (Chh)

10- Motor accident - insurance claim - deceased was

travelling as a pillion rider - fell down from the

scooter and succumbed to the injuries - claim

repudiated by insurance company on ground that

deceased being a gratuitous passenger and insurance

policy did not cover risk of injury or death of such

passenger - whether pillion rider on a scooter would

be a third party within the meaning of S. 147 of the

Act - held, liability of the insurance company in a

case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider

of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of

premium is paid for covering his/her risk (ii) the

legal obligation arising u/s. 147 of the Act cannot be

extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle

or the pillion rider (iii) the pillion rider in a two

wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when

the accident has taken place owing to rash and

negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of

the driver of another vehicle

2008(7) SCC 428.

HOME


28 Commencement of Policy and Breach ofPolicy:-

1-- Policy – commencement of - premium accepted on 3.5.97-

but cover note specified the effective date of

commencement as 5.5.97, as 3.5.97 was holiday- IC

contended that at the date of accident i.e.4.5.97,

there was not effective policy in existence- whether

IC is liable- held- yes- contract of insurance comes

in to effect from the date of acceptance of premium-

more particularly when IC had received the premium

prior to the date of accident

2011 ACJ 1728 (BOM)

2- Accident occurred on 20.5.85 at 7.45 pm- IP valid from

20.5.85 to 19.5.86- IP does not speak about the time

of commencement of policy-when policy is silent about

the time of its commencement, starting time has to be

taken as from the midnight of 20.5.85 and its ends at

2400 hrs on 19.5.86- Ic held liable

2011 ACJ 2394 (DEL)

3- An insurance policy, in law, could be issued from a

future date. A policy, however, which is issued from a

future date must be with the consent of the holder of

the policy. The insurance company cannot issue a

policy unilaterally from a future date without the

consent of the holder of a policy –

2009 (13) SCC-370 –Blabir Kaur v/s N.I.A.Com

4- U/s 147 (1)- Insurance Act u/s 64-VB- IC tried to

avoid its liability on the ground that police has not

come into existence as verification of vehicle was not

done- whether sustainable- Held- No- once premium is

paid, IC cannot avoid its liability-

2012 ACJ 1322

5- Commencement of policy- starts when?- It starts when

entire amount of premium is paid/made and it does not

make any difference when policy is made effective.

2013 ACJ 2493 (Mad)- O. I. Com. v/s Venkataraman,

dated 18.07.2012.

6- Section 64-VB – commencement of policy – whether IC

can defer assumption of risk to a later point of time


other than from the date and time of receipt of the

premium?- Held- No.- Insurance Policy (IP) under the

MV Act stand on differnet footing than the other IP

2014 ACJ 2847 (Chh) – SC judgments followed.

7- One of the grounds which is available to the Insurance

Company for denying its statutory liability is that

the policy is void having been obtained by reason of

non-disclosure of a material fact or by a

representation of fact which was false in some

material particular - once a valid contract is entered

into, only because of a mistake, the name of original

owner not been mentioned in the certificates of

registration, it cannot be said that the contract

itself is void - unless it was shown that in obtaining

the said contract, a fraud has been practiced - no

particulars of fraud pleaded- IC held liable

2009 (1) SCC 58.

8- Private vehicle- breach of policy- in FIR it is stated

that vehicle was hired- IC disputed its liability

relying on the word ‘hired’ in FIR- eye witnesses

deposed that vehicle was ‘borrowed’ from the friend

and denied that it was ‘hired’- whether IC is liable-

held- yes- as IC has neither confronted the witnesses

with the statement made by them in FIR nor examined

the IO or RTO officer

2011 ACJ 1482 (SIK)

9- Liability of IC- in tariff, under 'Limits of

Liability' it is mentioned 'As required by Law' and

not 'Act Policy' – words explained. In such

situation, IC is liable to pay awarded by the

Tribunal.

2012 AAC 3136.

10- Farmer's Package Policy- Tractor-trolley- purpose –

use of - guideline for assessment of liability of IC.

2014 ACJ 1691 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 2624 (All), 2014

ACJ 1254 (SC) – Fahim Ahmad v/s UII Com.

11- Contention that accident occurred on 27.11.1992 at

12.30 pm and policy was obtained at 3.30 pm on the

same day without disclosing fact accident and,

therefore, IC is not liable.- Whether sustainable?-


Held- No. Since IC failed to prove that policy came

into existence w.e.f. 27.11.1992 at 3.30 pm.

2015 ACJ 1347 (Jhr).

12– Owner of the offending vehicle did not file written

statement neither adduced any evidence that before the

date of accident, premium was paid by him and IC

issued Cover note on the basis. - IC also disputed

that said cover note was forged – Under these

circumstances, IC held not liable to pay compensation.

2015 ACJ 1824 (Bom)

HOME

29. Driver-Owner:-1- Two vehicular not driven by owner but the deceased- no

additional premium was paid to cover the risk of other

than the owner of vehicle-Whether IC is liable- held-

no.

2009 ACJ 998 (SC)

2- Act policy- deceased was not the owner of the car- IC

seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that

deceased was driving the car without the consent of

the owner- owner deposed that deceased was driving the

car with his consent- whether IC is liable- held- no-

deceased stepped in to the shoes of the owner

2009 ACJ 2020 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2251 (P&H)

3- Death of the owner of the truck – IC disputed its

liability on the ground that there is “Act policy’ and

risk only TP is covered- sustainable- held- no- it was

proved by the claimant that extra premium was paid and

IC has deliberately not mentioned the nature of policy

in the cover note- IC failed to discharge its burden

and prove that policy was ‘Act policy’ and IC’s

liability was restricted to statutory liability- IC

held liable

2011 ACJ 2275 (SIK)

4- S. 147, 166 - motor accident - owner himself involved

in accident, resulting in his death - he himself was

negligent - accident did not involve any other motor

vehicle - liability of Insurance Company - claim


petition under S. 166 - maintainability of - held,

liability of insurer-company is to the extent of

indemnification of insured against injured persons, a

third person or in respect of damages of property - if

insured cannot be fastened with any liability,

question not arise - additional premium under the

insurance policy was not paid in respect of entire

risk of death or bodily injury of owner of vehicle -

present case did not fall under S. 147(b) as it covers

a risk of a third party only

2007(9) SCC 263 – Jumma Shaha

5- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147 - question for

consideration as to whether comprehensive policy would

cover risk of injury to owner of vehicle also -

Tribunal directed driver and insurance company to pay

compensation to appellant-owner of vehicle - appellant

challenged order whereby it was held that as appellant

was owner of vehicle insurance company is not liable

to pay him any compensation - insurance policy covers

liability incurred by insured in respect of death of

or bodily injury to any person carried in vehicle or

damage to any property of third party - whether

premium paid under heading 'Own damage' is for

covering liability towards personal injury - held, S.

147 does not require insurance company to assume risk

for death or bodily injury to owner of vehicle - where

owner of vehicle has no liability to third party,

insurance company also has no liability also - it has

not been shown that policy covered any risk for injury

to owner himself - premium paid under heading 'Own

damage' does not cover liability towards personal

injury - premium is towards damage to vehicle and not

for injury to person of owner - appeal dismissed.

2004 (8) SCC 553 – Dhanraj v/s N.I. A. Com

6- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147 - question for

consideration as to whether comprehensive policy would

cover risk of injury to owner of vehicle also -

Tribunal directed driver and insurance company to pay

compensation to appellant-owner of vehicle - appellant

challenged order whereby it was held that as appellant

was owner of vehicle insurance company is not liable


to pay him any compensation - insurance policy covers

liability incurred by insured in respect of death of

or bodily injury to any person carried in vehicle or

damage to any property of third party - whether

premium paid under heading 'Own damage' is for

covering liability towards personal injury - held, S.

147 does not require insurance company to assume risk

for death or bodily injury to owner of vehicle - where

owner of vehicle has no liability to third party

insurance company has no liability also - it has not

been shown that policy covered any risk for injury to

owner himself - premium paid under heading 'Own

damage' does not cover liability towards personal

injury - premium is towards damage to vehicle and not

for injury to person of owner - appeal dismissed.

2009(2) SCC 417 –N.I.A v/s Saddanand Mukhi

7- Managing Trustee died in the accident- Vehicle was

registered in his name- whether he can be held as

owner? -Held- No.

2012 ACJ 1886

8- Non-joinder of driver- IC did not agitated the same

during trial, though plea of non-joinder was taken in

WS- Whether, such plea can be allowed to be raised at

the time of final hearing or appeal? - Held- No.

2012 ACJ 2647. SC judgments followed.

9- Act policy – Goods vehicle- Whether IC is liable to

pay compensation to the employees of the hirer? Held-

No- IC is liable to pay compensation only to the

employees of owners.

2013 ACJ 1- Sanjeev Samrat.

10- Death of the owner of the jeep- in such case, IC is

not liable to pay compensation. 2013 ACJ 1382. (Del)

11- Motorcycle- Motorcyclist driving motorcycle at

moderate speed applied brake in stagnant rain water,

vehicle skidded and he sustained injuries- IP cover

risk of Driver-Owner- Tribunal found that there was no

negligence on the part of the motorcyclist- Whether in

such situation IC is liable?- Held- Yes- In view of

the IMT 15.2014 ACJ 721 (Mad).


12- Owner-driver – Wife is a owner of the vehicle which

bing driven by deceased husband- whether husband can

be said to be third party for wife?- Held- No.- As he

stepped in to the shoe of the owner- Only entitled for

Rs.2,00,000.

2014 ACJ 1524 (UK). Also see 2014 ACJ 1574

(Del), wherein it is held that as per IMT GR-36

personal accident cover is available to the owner

of insured vehicle holding valid and effective

licence but anybody driving the vehicle with or

without permission of the owner cannot be taken

as owner-driver.

Also - deceased stepped into the shoe of the

owner - when IC failed to prove that accident

occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased,

claim petition u/s 163-A cannot be turned down.

2015 ACJ 2739 (AP) Several SC judgments

relied upon.

Also see 2016 ACJ 335 (Kar) – Rs.1,00,000/-

awarded.

13- Owner-cum-driver – Additional premium of Rs.2,00,000/-

paid – Whether IC is liable to pay?- Held -Yes as same

is covered under compulsory accident cover.

2014 ACJ 2195 (Mad)

14- Driver- on deputation- whether temporary employer is

liable to make good to the temporary employee who is

working on deputation with it?- Held- Yes.

2014 ACJ 2791 (Bom).

15- Owner travelling along with his goods which was being

driven by driver and accident occurred and owner

sustain injuries – whether IC is liable to pay

compensation?- Held- No. As owner cannt be held to be

Third Party.

2014 ACJ 2869 (AP) - Dhanraj v/s NIA Com, 2005

ACJ 1 (SC) followed.

16- Jeep driven by father of the owner- policy covers only

six passengers- actually 11 passengers were

travelling- jeep fell in to ditch resulting death of


all passengers- IC is liable- not for all claimant- IC

is directed to pay compensation and further ordered to

recover from the owner and driver

2011 AIR SCW 2802- K.M. Poonam

17- Driver-owner held responsible for causing the

accident- other vehicle which dashed with the vehicle

of driver-owner, did not have valid and effective

policy- Tribunal jointly held driver-owner and driver

of the other vehicle responsible in the said accident

and directed the IC of the driver-owner to pay

compensation- whether sustainable- Held- No- As policy

covers only TP and not owner.

2013 ACJ 393 (Cal)- SC judgments followed.

18– Driver-owner -owner was driving jeep and sustained

fatal injuries – whether IC can be held responsible?-

Held – yes – as per Section 2(9) of M V Act, any

person behind the steering wheel is a driver and owner

of the vehicle would also be a driver – if policy is

comprehensive and risk of the driver is covered under

such policy then IC can be held responsible.

2015 ACJ 2833 (All)

19– Motor cycle of the owner was borrowed – met with an

accident with truck – additional premium of was paid

to driver the risk of Driver-owner – whether borrower

is entitled to claim compensation as driver of the two

wheeler?- Held- Yes. As term driver is explained in IC

as ”any person including the insured”. 2016 ACJ 47

(P&H)

But see 2016 ACJ 1050 (P&H)

HOME

30. Travelling on roof-top of the bus:-1- Travelling on roof top- IC seeks to avoid its

liability on that count- Tribunal found deceased to be

partly negligent and allowed claim petition partly-

whether sustainable- held- yes- as IC failed to prove

that deceased was not holding the valid tickets-

2011 ACJ 2156 (ALL)- also see 2014 ACJ 17 (P&H),

2014 ACJ 2690 (MP)


2- Travelling on the roof top- whether it is a case of

contributory negligence?- Held- No – as passengers are

at the mercy of the bus operators.

2013 ACJ 1058, 2013 ACJ 2834.

HOME

31. Private Vehicle:-1- Private vehicle- breach of policy- in FIR it is stated








2011 ACJ 1482 (SIK), 2015 ACJ 1928 (Pat)

2- IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that

deceased and other injured students were travelling in

privet ‘jeep’, which they had taken on hire-

comprehensive policy covers the risk of inmates of

private vehicle- IC cannot avoid its liability on the

ground that deceased was paid passenger- held- terms

in policy which discriminate liability of insurance

company for paid inmate and gratuitous passengers ,

held discriminatory and illegal-

2011 ACJ 1831 (KAR)

3- Private car policy- gratuitous passengers- whether IC

is laible?- Held -no.

2012 ACJ 1880

4- Act Policy- private vehicle- liability of insurance

company- no evidence produced by IC to avoid its

liability. Deceased cannot be said that they were

gratuitous passenger when they were travelling in

private car.

2012 ACJ 2451 (Ori).

5- Private vehicle/car - package policy- whether

occupants of the said vehicle be treated as TP?-

Whether IC can be held liable to pay compensation to

such occupants?- Held- yes.


2013 ACJ 321 (SC) – O.I.Com. v/s Surendra Nath

Loomba. Also see, Blalakrishan judgment.

6- Private vehicle- Package policy- comprehensive policy-

owner-cum-driver – additional premium paid by owner-

whether under such situation IC can be held liable to pay

amount of compensation?- Held- Yes. - National Insurance

company v/s Balakrishnan, 2013 ACJ 199 (SC) followed.

2015 ACJ 379 (Sik), 2016 ACJ 194 (Bom)

7- Private vehicle- owner of private car died due the

negligent driving of the car owned by the deceased- along

with owner, his son was also travelling in the said car

and he also died in the said car accident- mother of the

minor filed claim petition without joining her

husband/owner as party opponent but joined only IC-

whether in such situation, her claim petition is


2015 ACJ 531 (HP)

8- It is proved that Private vehicle was used as

commercial vehicle – IC held not liable.

2016 ACJ 371 (Del).

9– School bus was being used for marriage party –

whetehrin such situation IC is held laible to pay

compensation? - Held- Yes.

2016 ACJ 732 (Chh)

HOME

32. Permit:-1- IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that

offending vehicle was being plied without permit- duty

of IC to verify the fact that permit of vehicle was

valid or not at the time of insuring the vehicle- IC

having insured the vehicle without valid permit cannot

seek exemption from liability

2011 ACJ 1683 (UTK)

2- Permit- IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground

that owner of ‘Taxi’, which hit the pedestrians had

violated terms of policy as ‘taxi’ could not have been

used in a public place after expiry of permit- policy

was found to be valid- no case of IC that passengers


were being carried for hire and reward and policy did

not cover the case of TP- victim did not suffer

injuries while travelling in the ‘taxi’ for hire or

reward-mere expiry of permit would not absolve IC to

pay compensation, as no provision of MV Act is shown

by IC to point out that owner of ‘taxi’ was under

legal obligation, not to ply ‘taxi’ after the expiry

of permit

2011 ACJ 2242 (KER)

3- Vehicle was insured but not having valid permit-

breach of policy- order of pay and recover passed.

2012 AAC 3234, 2016 ACJ 365 (P&H)

4- Valid permit- IC sough to avoid its liability on the

ground that terms and conditions of the policy is

violated- Whether sustainable- Held- No-

2013 ACJ 788

5- Route permit – Breach of policy- When there is breach

of policy, IC is not liable to pay amount of

compensation.

2013 ACJ 1008. Similar view is taken by HP High

Court in the case of OI Com. v/s Samila, 2013 ACJ

2785 – Also see Note 326

IC is liable to satisfy the TP claim even if

route permit is violated.- 2014 ACJ 1597 (P&H) –

NII Com. v/s Anuradha. Also see 2014 ACJ 2039 –

Pawan Kumar v/s Jaswant Kaur, 2016 ACJ 970 (Kar)

6- Violation of Permit- alleged that offending vehicle

was being plied at the place where it had no valid

permit to ply- whether on this count IC can avoid it's

liability- Held -No.

2013 ACJ 2282 (P&H).

7- Permit- When can it be said owner/driver has violated

terms and condition of the permit and same is

fundamental breach.

2013 ACJ 2570 (Del). Mahender Singh v/s O.I.Com.

2013 ACJ 2589 (Del)

8- Route permit- when there is violation of route permit,

IC is not liable to pay amount of compensation- order

of Pay and Recover can be passed.

2014 ACJ 160 (HP)- 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC) – Challa


Bharathamma followed. Also see 2015 ACJ 2094

(HP).

Contrary views are taken in 2014 ACJ 1284,

2015 ACJ 2754 (P&H) - IC held not liable to pay

compensation.

Hon'ble P & H High Court (Chandigarh Bench)

has taken both the above views. Those judgments

are reported in 2015 ACJ 1791 and 2015 ACJ 1793.

In 2015 ACJ 2754 (P&H) there is good

discussion on Section 149 (2) (a) (i) (c) r/w

Section 66 of M V Act and Permit.

9- Breach of policy and permit- overloading- order of pay

and recover passed.

2014 ACJ 385 (Mad).

10- Permit- IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground

that driver of offending vehicle was not possessing

authorization card- Whether it amount to fundamental

breach?- Held- No.

11- IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that

offending vehicle was being plied without permit- duty

of IC to verify the fact that permit of vehicle was

valid or not at the time of insuring the vehicle- IC

having insured the vehicle without valid permit cannot

seek exemption from liability

2011 ACJ 1683 (UTK)

12- On whose shoulder the responsibility to lies to prove that

owner had violated the terms and conditions of the

Permit?- Held – on IC.

2015 ACJ 570 (Raj).

13- Permit – violation – Defence of IC is that offending

vehicle was being driven by a driver authorised by the

permit holder and not by permit holder himself and same

was in violation of condition No.V of the permit and,

therefore, IC can not be held responsible to compensation

– whether such defence is sustainable – Held- No. As such

defence is not available u/s 149 (2) of M v Act.

2015 ACJ 1990 (Del)

14- Temporary Permit -violation of- there cannot be automatic

presumption that violation of provision of MV Act will

amount to violation of terms and conditions of contract.

2015 ACJ 2592 (P&H).


15- Tribunal found that owner had no permit for plying auto

rickshaw thus he violated terms of the policy and permit

and exonerated IC– in appeal owner contended that he was

plying the vehicle without any passenger on the public

road - whether owner/driver is prohibited to ply vehicle

without any passenger on the public road?- Section 66 is

limited to the use of vehicle as transport vehicle without

a valid permit and it does not prohibit plying the

vehicle without any passenger on the public road Held.

No.- IC held liable.

2016 ACJ 679 (Ker)

HOME

33 Hire and Reward owner/driver forproduction of DL :-

1- Liability of IC in case where passengers were carried

in private vehicle for hire or reward- such passengers

not being TP- IC held not liable as neither the

premium was paid for carriage of passengers nor there

was any permit to ply vehicle for hire or reward

2011 ACJ 1753 (HP)

2- Private vehicle- breach of policy- in FIR it is stated








2011 ACJ 1482 (SIK)

3- Death of passenger travelling in the Jeep- IC disputed

its liability on the ground that there was Act policy

and deceased was traveling on hire and policy does not

cover the risk of person- whether sustainable?- held-

no- IC adduced no evidence to prove that Jeep was used

for hire and reward-as per registration certi. All

such persons come within the expression TP and since

policy covers TP risk, IC is held liable

2011 ACJ 2638. But see 2015 ACJ 2098 (Bom –

Aurangabad Bench).


4- Constitution of India - Art. 136 - Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 - S. 149 - Tractor plying on hire - Labourer

sitting on the mudguard of Tractor - Falling down -

Getting crushed under the wheels - Driver not

possessing a valid license - Tribunal awarding

compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs - High Court summarily

dismissing the appeal of Insurance Company - Held : It

was not a fit case for any interference under Article

136 of the Constitution of India, however, it is open

to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from

owner by filing application before the Tribunal

without filing a separate execution petition against

the owner

2008 (2) GLH 393 (SC) –N.I.A Com v/s Darshan Devi

IC held not liable- 2013 ACJ 2108 (P & H), 2014

ACJ 1792 (MP)

5- Owner of the bus gave the same on hire to the

Corporation along with policy- bus dashed with two

wheeler – whether IC can avoid its liability-held- No-

when vehicle was given on hire with its existing

policy, IC cannot avoid its liability.

2013 ACJ 10 (Mad)

HOME

34. Transfer of Vehicle:-1- Death of the owner of the offending vehicle, prior to

the accident- whether the transferee in possession has

to be deemed to be covered by policy and Tribunal

erred in exonerating the IC from liability-held- yes-

IC held liable- further held that on the death of

owner, transfer of IP is automatic

2003 ACJ 534 (SC), 2002 ACJ 1035 (MAD), 2001 ACJ

567 (GUJ), 2011 ACJ 1717 (ORI), 2014 ACJ 2751

(All)

2- Vehicle which met with an accident is sold of by the

owner in favour of third party- in such case who is

liable to pay amount of compensation?- Held-

registered owner remains owner for the purpose of M.V.

Act, even though under civil law he ceased to be the


owner after the sale- in such situation, both the

persons namely current and old owners, both are held

liable to pay amount of compassion.

2015 ACJ 1352 (AP), 2012 ACJ 2269 (Del)- 2012 ACJ

2319 (P&H), 2015 ACJ 2797 (P&H)- 2011 ACJ 705

(SC) = AIR 2011 SC 682, Pushpa v/s Shakuntala,

relied upon.

But also see- 2006 ACJ 1441(SC)- Tilak

Singh.

3 – Transfer of the vehicle – own damage case – liability

of IC – contention that Section 157 of the M V Act is

not applicable to own damage claim, especially when

the policy had not been transferred in favour of the

transferee-owner – Section 157 would come into play

only in the case of TP claim and shall not apply in

the case of transferee-owner.

2015 ACJ 1703 (P&H).

HOME

35. Post Mortum Report:-1- Absence of PM report- whether claimants are entitled

to get compensation in absence of PM report- held –

yes- as there are sufficient evidence to prove that

deceased died because of the vehicular accident- non

availability of PM report does not absolve the IC from

its liability

2011 ACJ 2197 (MAD), 2012 AAC 3240.

2- Dismissal of claim petition on the ground that

claimants have not proved the accident by examining

the doctor who had conducted P.M.- Vail?- No- Is the

duty cast upon the Tribunal to issue notice upon the

Doctor and IO, before deciding the petition.- If the

counsel for the claimant has failed to perform his

duty, claimant cannot be made to suffer.

2012 ACJ 1046 (Kar), 2014 ACJ 1479 (P&H)

3- Whether PM report is must to prove accident- Held – No

2012 ACJ 1434 (Ori) Relevant on page No. 1439,

para 1.5

HOME


36. Dishonour of Cheque:-1- Dishonour of cheque issued towards premium- policy-

cancellation of- liability of IC- IC cancelled the

policy and intimated about it to the owner- whether ICis liable- held- no

2001 ACJ 638 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2230 (BOM)2- Insured tendered cheque to Insurer on 23/1/1995,

towards premium - Cover note was issued by the insurer- On 27/1/1995 accident took place & third party,

suffered severe injuries - The cheque given forinsurance, dishonored - After the date of accident

Insurance Policy was cancelled - However, on30/1/1995, insured paid cash to insurer - Insurer

contended that a contract of insurance would be validonly when cheque paid for premium is honoured - On the

dishonor of the cheque the contract being withoutconsideration, need not be performed - Held, cover-

note was issued and cover-note would come within thepurview of definition of "Certificate of Insurance"

and also an "insurance policy" - It remains valid tillit is cancelled.

2008(3) GLH 791(SC) - Abhaysing PratapsingWaghela

3- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147(5), S. 149(1) -Insurance Act, 1938 - S. 64-VB - Indian Contract Act,

1872 - S. 2, S. 51, S. 124 - Liability of Insurer -Dishonour of cheque for premium - Cancellation of

Insurance policy by insurer on account of dishonor ofcheque for premium - The fact of cancellation was

informed by Insurance Company to the insured and RTO -Accident occurred thereafter - Held, Insurance Company

would not be liable to satisfy the claim. 2008 (3) GLH 168 (SC) – Deddappa v/s N.I. Com

4- Dishonour of cheque given for payment of premium ofpolicy- IC cancelled the policy after the date of

accident - liability of IC- Held -IC liable to satisfythe award passed by the Tribunal- IC may prosecute its

remedy to recover the amount paid to the claimantsfrom the insurer.

2012 ACJ 1307 (SC) UIIC v/s Laxmamma. 2013 ACJ2416 (SC) – N.I. Com v/s Balkar Ram, 2013 ACJ

2247 (Ori)

HOME


37. Pay and Recover:-1- Jeep driven by father of the owner- policy covers only







2- Order of ‘pay and recover’- whether HC or Tribunal can

direct the IC to pass an order of pay and recover? –

question referred to Larger Bench for consideration

2009 (3) GLH 377 (SC) - N.I. Com v/s Parvathneni.

Please Note:- Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the

said SLP being No.22444 of 2009 on 17/09/2013 (from

the judgment and order dated 12/12/2008 in MACMA

No.1211 of 2007 of the High Court of A.P. at

Hyderabadon 18/09/2013).

3- Respondent No.2 was the owner of a Mini Bus. An

insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle was

sought to be taken by him. For the said purpose, the

second respondent issued a third party cheque towards

payment of insurance premium. The Development Officer

of the appellant by inadvertence issued a cover note.

However, when the said mistake came to his notice, the

respondent No.2 was contacted by the Development

Officer. He was asked to pay the amount of premium. It

was not tendered and in stead the respondent No.2 is

said to have returned the original cover note and took

back the cheque. The original cover note as also all

the duplicate copies thereof was cancelled. The said

insurance cover was issued for the period 3.9.1991 to

2.9.1992. On or about 12.9.1991, the said vehicle met

with an accident. First respondent who suffered an

injury therein filed a claim petition in terms of the

provisions contained in Sec. 166-effect - liability of

insurer when vehicle met with accident within the

period under cover note - held, no premium could be

said to have been paid - no privity of contract

between insurer and insured - Supreme Court in


jurisdiction under Art. 142 of Constitution, directed

insurer to recover the paid compensation from insured-

owner - appeal allowed.

2008(7) SCC 526













the owner



ACJ 1792 (MP)














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 possessing lincence to ply

LMV (Non-transport) but was plying Tata Sumo


registered as Tourist Taxi and, therefore, IC is


6- Order of ‘pay and recover’- whether HC or Tribunal can

direct the IC to pass an order of pay and recover? –

question referred to Larger Bench for consideration

2009 (3) GLH 377 (SC) - N.I. Com v/s Parvathneni








8- Respondent No.2 was the owner of a Mini Bus. An

























2008(7) SCC 526














the owner



ACJ 1792 (MP)

10- In this case since the person riding the motorcycle at

the time of accident was a minor, the responsibility

for paying the compensation awarded fell on the owner

of the motorcycle. In fact, in the case of Ishwar

Chandra V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2007) 3 AD

(SC) 753], it was held by this Court that in case the

driver of the vehicle did not have a licence at all,

the liability to make payment of compensation fell on

the owner since it was his obligation to take

adequate care to see that the driver had an

appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. Before the

Tribunal reliance was also placed on the decision in

the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. G. Mohd.

Vani & Ors. [2004 ACJ 1424] and National Insurance Co.

Ltd. V/s. Candingeddawa & Ors. [2005 ACJ 40], wherein

it was held that if the driver of the offending

vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, then the

Insurance Company after paying the compensation amount

would be entitled to recover the same from the owner

of the vehicle- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal quite

rightly saddled the liability for payment of

compensation on the Petitioner and, accordingly,

directed the Insurance Company to pay the awarded

amount to the awardees and, thereafter, to recover the

same from the Petitioner. The said question has been


duly considered by the Tribunal and was correctly

decided. The High Court rightly chose not to interfere

with the same.

2011(6) SCC 425 – Jawahar Singh v/s Bala Jain

11- Death in motor accident - liability of Insurance

Company - Tribunal observed that driver of bus was not

possessing valid driving license - compensation of Rs.

2,68,800 awarded - respondent no. 3 and 4 were driver

and owner of bus - respondent no. 3 and 4 were liable

to make payment - direction issued to appellant/IC to

deposit amount and that it can recover the same from

respondents – appellant/IC deposited necessary amount

- recovery of amount - Execution Petition(EP) filed by

IC- whether civil suit was required to be filed

instead of filing execution petition – held- no -when

such direction to file suit instead of filling EP

issued by Tribunal same is not sustainable- EP is held

to be maintainable- whenever order of ‘pay and

recover’ is passed by Tribunal, then it must be held

to have been done in exercise of inherent power of

Tribunal- Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

in terms whereof, it is not only entitled to determine

the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for

recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of

the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute

between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or

driver of the vehicle involved in the accident

inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a

proceeding-many SC ratios considered.

2009(8) SCC 377 – N.I.A. Com v/s Kusum

12- 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 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.

13- U/s 147- Pay and recover- Guideleine.

2012 AAC 3151(ALLAHBAD). N.I.Co., Varanasi v.s.

Smt. Abhirajji Devi.

14- 'Pay and Recover'- Whether Tribunal can direct the IC

to first pay and then recover the amount of

compensation? Held No-

O.I.Com. v/s K.C. Subramanayam, reported in CDJ

2012 Karnataka HC 339.

15- Execution- whether IC has right to recover an amount

of compassion in the same proceedings or it has to

file the separate suit for recovery? -Held- in the

same proceeding.

2013 ACJ 2233 (P&H)- 2004 ACJ 1093 (SC)- Pramod

Kumar Agrrawal and 2001 ACJ 843 (SC) - Kamla

16- Pay and recover- Accident by negligent driving of

Minor- Liability of Financier – order of pay and

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)

17- When an order of pay and recover is passed against IC-

in such situation IC is said to be aggrieved party-

held- no- SC ratios followed

2011 ACJ 2498 para -12

18- 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).

19- Which directions are required to be ordered in the

operative portion of the award, while passing and

order of Pay and Recover?- Directions given.

Pramod kumar Agrawal 2004 ACJ 1903 (SC) also see

2015 ACJ 1602 (Bom).

HOME


38. Stepped into the shoe of the owner:-1- 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.

2- 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.

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, 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

3- U/s 163A- deceased stepped into the shoes of the

owner- IC held not liable-

2012 ACJ 391

4- u/s 163A- accident between scooter and car- scooter

belonged to the brother of claimant- whether claimant

is entitled for compensation u/s 163A?- Held- No- As

claimant has stepped into the shoe of owner- IC cannot

be held liable- Sc judgments followed-

2012 ACJ 1329 (P&H)

5- Whether a claim petition preferred u/s 163A of the Act

is maintainable when person ridding a motor cycle

borrowed it from its owner- Held- No.

2013 ACJ 1472- SC Judgments in the cases of

Sadanand Mukhi, Ningamma and Rajni Devi followed.

2016 ACJ 1072 (Del)


6- Borrower of the vehicle- met with an accident as

scooter slipped- no other vehicle involved- Whether in

such situation, IC is liable to pay amount of

compensation?- Held- No.

2014 ACJ 604 (P&H).

7- Borrower of the vehicle- met with an accident as

scooter slipped- no other vehicle involved- said

vehicle is owned by the mother of the scooterist-

claim petition u/s 163A- owner had taken personal

accident cover of Rs.1,00,000/- Whether under this

situation, IC is held liable to pay amount of

compassion?- Held- but only upto Rs.1,00,000/-

2014 ACJ 604 (P&H) HN-B.

But see 2016 ACJ 1050 (P&H)

8- Claim petition u/s 163A of MV Act by L.R. Of deceased

who stepped into the shoe of the owner are entitled

for compensation?- Held- No. At the most they are

entitled for Rs.50,000/- under Section 140.

2014 ACJ 2561 (P&H), three SC Judgments followed.

- Eshwarappa, 2010 ACJ 2444 (SC), Ningamma, 2009

ACJ 2020 (SC) and Rajni Devi, 2008 ACJ 1441

(SC). 2016 ACJ 250 (P&H)

9- Personal accident- deceased stepped into the shoes of

the owner – whether such person is entitled to claim

any amount under the head of “Personal Accident'?-

Held- No.- Such benefit can only be availed by the

owner himself and not any other person who stepped

into his shoes.

Further held that when accident occurred

only because of the sole negligence of the

deceased, LR of deceased are not entitled for any

compensation u/s 163A but under Section 140 of

the Act.

2014 ACJ 2803(P&H), 2015 ACJ 2642 (P&H)

HOME


39. Cover Note:-1- Respondent No.2 was the owner of a Mini Bus. An

























2008(7) SCC 526

2- Insured tendered cheque to Insurer on 23/1/1995,

towards premium - Cover note was issued by the insurer

- On 27/1/1995 accident took place & third party,

suffered severe injuries - The cheque given for

insurance, dishonored - After the date of accident

Insurance Policy was cancelled - However, on

30/1/1995, insured paid cash to insurer - Insurer

contended that a contract of insurance would be valid

only when cheque paid for premium is honoured - On the

dishonor of the cheque the contract being without

consideration, need not be performed - Held, cover-

note was issued and cover-note would come within the

purview of definition of "Certificate of Insurance"

and also an "insurance policy" - It remains valid till

it is cancelled.


2008(3) GLH 791(SC) - Abhaysing Pratapsing

Waghela

3- Cover note- proposal Form was submitted to IC on

30.12.2002 at 11.11 a.m.-- IC issued cover note

mentioning that risk was undertaken from 31.12.2002 –

whether IC is liable- held- no- when there is specific

mention with respect to the effective date of policy,

it starts from 31.12.2002- accident occurred on

30.12.2002 at 8 p.m.- held IC is not liable

2012 ACJ 131- 2009 (3) 155 PLR 65 (SC) -Oriental

Ins. Co. v/s Porselvi -followed

4- Cover Note- IC did not produce any ledger or other

evidence to prove that on the date of accident premium

was not paid- Whether IC is liable- Held- Yes-

2012 ACJ 1497 (MP), 2016 ACJ 851 (P&H)

5- Dispute with regard to Cover-note – IC dispute it's

liability on the ground that Cover-note is forged -

held – in summary proceeding, Tribunal cannot decide

said issue.

2013 ACJ 2245 (Pat), 2013 ACJ 2542 (P&H), 2016

ACJ 851 (P&H)

6- Policy – commencement of - premium accepted on 3.5.97-

but cover note specified the effective date of

commencement as 5.5.97, as 3.5.97 was holiday- IC

contended that at the date of accident i.e.4.5.97,

there was not effective policy in existence- whether

IC is liable- held- yes- contract of insurance comes

in to effect from the date of acceptance of premium-

more particularly when IC had received the premium

prior to the date of accident

2011 ACJ 1728 (BOM)

7- Cover Note – interpolation – accident occurred on

24.12.1999 at 7.15 pm – cover note has been

interpolated as 21.40 pm – when time is mentioned in

hours there was no necessity to write pm – IC

manipulated the time of original cover note and,

therefore, IC held liable.

2015 ACJ 2051.

HOME


40. Hypothecation:-1- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 94, 95, 145, 147,

149(2), 155 - truck was insured with the appellant in

the name of the husband of respondent - truck was

hypothecated to a Bank - renewal of contract of

insurance used to be done by the Bank - no step was

taken either by the Bank or the legal heirs of

deceased to get the registration of vehicle

transferred in their names - vehicle met with accident

- driver died - driver's legal heirs filed an

application for grant of compensation against the

widow of the deceased and the appellant-Insurance

Company - Workmen's Compensation Commissioner directed

payment of compensation to widow of truck driver -

High Court dismissed appeal - appeal against - held,

one of the grounds which is available to the Insurance

Company for denying its statutory liability is that

the policy is void having been obtained by reason of

non-disclosure of a material fact or by a

representation of fact which was false in some

material particular - once a valid contract is entered

into, only because of a mistake, the name of original

owner not been mentioned in the certificates of

registration, it cannot be said that the contract

itself is void - unless it was shown that in obtaining

the said contract, a fraud has been practiced - no

particulars of fraud pleaded - no infirmity in High

Court's judgment

2009(1) SCC 558 –U.I.I v/s Santro Devi

2- Hypothecation- finance company is not liable to pay

compensation.

2015 ACJ 1 (SC) – HDFC Bank Resham (FB), 2015 ACJ

1513 (SC) – Central Bank v/s Jagbir Singh. 2016

ACJ 1112 (CHH) – Judgement of Godavari Finance

Com v/s Degala Satyanarayanamma, reported in 2008

ACJ 1612 (SC)

HOME


41. Transfer of the Vehicle:-1- Accident- insurance- damage to the vehicle- transfer

of the vehicle- liability of the IC – Transferee never

got policy transferred in his name- Transferee

contended that transfer of ownership takes place by

delivery of goods and by passing of consideration

under the Sale of Goods Act- u/s 50 of the MV Act,

transfer of registration is required- Held- transfer

of vehicle is different from transfer of registration

of vehicle- Right to enforce an obligation under the

policy against IC could arise for the transferee only

by obtaining a transfer of policy- failure to obtain a

transfer of policy may not affect the right of third

party under the Act but will have bearing on the right

of the transferee himself- claim by transferee for

damage to his vehicle is maintainable against the IC,

without getting the policy transferred in his name is

not maintainable.

2012 ACJ 1110 (P&H)

2- Transfer of vehicle- IC dispute it's liability on the

ground that insurer had transfer his vehicle and

obligation to indemnify the insured arises when

insured is held vicariously liable for negligence of

driver- whether sustainable?- Held- No. - IP stands,

deemed to be transfer in the name of transferee- IC is

liable.

2013 ACJ 2235 (Mad)

3- U/s 157(1) - Transfer of vehicle- Deemed transfer of

certificate of insurance- Whether IC can be held

liable? -Held- Yes.

2014 ACJ 818 (Ker)

4- Transfer of the vehicle- certificate of insurance –

once possession is taken over by the transferee along

with certificate of insurance, IC can not evade it's

liability to pay compensation.

2014 ACJ 1266 (SC) – Mallamma v/s NI Com, 2014

ACJ 2751 (All)

HOME


42. Public Place u/s 2 (34):-1- U/s 147(1) and 2 (34)- public place and land abutting

public road- whether the land abutting public road to

which public has free and easy access is a public

place, irrespective of the fact that it stood recorded

in the name of a private individual- Held- Yes- SC

decisions referred to

2012 ACJ 1175 (Ori), 2014 ACJ 576 (Kar), 2014 ACJ

1312 (Raj)

2- Public place- agriculture field is public place?- Held

- Yes

2013 ACJ 30 (AP), 2016 ACJ 704 (Ker)

HOME

4 3 . Militant Attack- Hijack-Terrorist AttackMurder, Heart Attack, Lightning –Arising out of Accident:-

1- Intentional murder by use of Motor Vehicle- Whether

the claim petition is maintainable? - Held- No- SC

decisions referred to.

2012 ACJ 1188 (Chht), 2016 ACJ 523 (P&H) -

[Judgment of Rita Devi v/s NIA Com, 2000 ACJ 801

(SC) followed.

2- Murder- Application u/s 163A- whether maintainable?-

Held -yes.

2012 ACJ 1512 (Ker)

3- Bus came in contact with live wire- Claimant died

because of electrocution- whether IC is liable?- Held

- yes.

SC judgment followed. - 2012 AAC 2886.

4- Claimant sustained fracture when he was trying to

replace punctured tyre and when jack suddenly slipped

and leg of the claimant is crushed - Claimant

preferred an application u/s 163A- Dismissed by

Tribunal by holding that accident had not taken place

during driving of the vehicle. Sustainable- Held- No.

It is not necessary that vehicle should be in running

condition when accident occurred. Even if it was

stationary, IC is liable to pay compensation.

2013 ACJ 1561, 2016 ACJ 345 (P&H)


5- Militant Attack- Hijack-Terrorist Attack- Fatal in the

motor vehicle- whether claim petition is maintainable

in such cases?- Held- No.

2014 ACJ 1086, 2016 ACJ 712 (T & A)

But contrary views taken in the case of

death of security personnel- 2014 ACJ 1353 (Ass),

2015 ACJ 2814 (Tri)

Bomb Blast in Bus, resulting death of

several passengers- Whether a claim petition u/s

163A is maintainable?- Held- Yes, as accident

arose out of the use of the motor vehicle- 2014

ACJ 2129 (All)

6- Deceased died because he was crushed by concrete

pillar, which fell no him as it was dashed by the

offending vehicle- Whether IC of offending vehicle

liable to pay compensation?- Held- Yes.

2012 AAC 3124.

7- 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 held that accident was

arising out of use of motor vehicle.

2014 ACJ 2136 – U I I Com. v/s Ramani C.K. (Ker)

8- Intentional murder by use of Motor Vehicle- Whether

the claim petition is maintainable? - Held- No- SC

decisions referred to.

2012 ACJ 1188 (Chht).

9- Accident occurred when deceased tried to board the bus

which did not stop at the decided destination and


deceased ran after the bus to board but driver drove

off – deceased chase the bus in a Jeep, made the

driver to stop the bus and had an altercation with the

driver while standing on the middle of the road – bus

driver while sitting in the bus pushed deceased and

deceased fell down and was ultimately crushed by truck

coming from other direction – IC sought to be

exonerated on the count that accident did not arise

out of use of vehicle- Whether sustainable?- Held- No.

2015 ACJ 1400 (Ker)

10- Presumption u/s 108 of Evidence Act can be made

applicable and claim petition can be allowed on such

presumption?- Held – No.

2015 ACJ 1883 (All).

11- When vehicle was requisitioned by the State for police

duty and in the militant/terrorist attack occupant

sustains fatal injuries – whether under these

circumstances State can be held responsible – Held –

Yes.

2015 ACJ 2862 (Gua)- judgment of SC in the case

of NIC v/s Deepa Devi, 2008 ACJ 705 (SC) relied

upon.

12– Deceased died due to lightning – whether LRs of

deceased are entitled to claim compensation under the

M V Act? - Held- No. They are required to file claim

petition under the provision of the Workmen's

Compensation Act.

2016 ACJ 1202 (AP)

HOME

4 4 . Dismiss for Default:-1- Dismiss for Default- DD- whether claim petition

preferred under the MV Act can be dismissed for

default after the framing the issues? - Held- No-

Tribunal is required to decide the case on merits.

2012 ACJ 1261 (Guj) Bharatbhai Chaudhary v/s

Malek Rafik, 2014 ACJ 1382 (Chh)

HOME


4 5 . Burden of Proof:-1- 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.

2- Burden of proof on IC– IC contended that driver of

offending vehicle did not possess valid licence- IC

did not issued any notice to owner, driver to produce

DL nor made any application to issue summons to RT

officer- 2012 ACJ 1484 ((MP)

HOME

4 5A . Stationary Vehicle:-1- It is the case of the IC that truck was standing and

at that point, jeep dashed in the rear portion of the

Truck and therefore, it is not liable- whether

sustainable?- Held- No- Even if it is presumed that

truck was stationary, IC of truck is liable as driver

of the truck is held negligent to the extent of 25%-

various SC judgments followed.

2012 ACJ 1390 (Raj) also see 2013 ACJ 1646 also

see 2013 ACJ 2295 (Kar) also see 2013 ACJ 2399

(P&H), 2013 ACJ 2785 (P&H)- See also Section 122

of the M.V. Act., 1986 ACJ 1070 (Guj), 2014 ACJ

1476

2- Parked vehicle in the middle of the road- Stationary

vehicle.

2014 ACJ 1216

3- Stationary vehicle- parked in the middle of the road

without headlights or indication light – deceased died

as he dashed on the rear portion of the said

stationary vehicle- whether IC of said vehicle can

avoid its liability ? Held- No. 2013 ACJ 56 (Del), 2013 ACJ 1960 (AP), 2013 ACJ2781 (P&H), 1986 ACJ 1070 (Guj)


4- Truck driver applied sudden brakes and car following

said truck dashed into iron plates protreuding out of

its rear portion resulting in death of driver – both

the drivers held equally negligent in causing

accident.

2015 ACJ 2664 (Guj)

5- Stationary vehicle – vehicle was in possession of

police – whether police can be said to be owner and IC

of said vehicle can be exonerated on that count?- Held

– No.

2016 ACJ 369 (Raj)

HOME

4 6 . Tractor-Trolley:-1- Tractor-trailer- Tractor-trolley- worker sustained

injuries- IC seeks to avoid its liability on the

ground that policy does not cover risk of owner and

labourers- whether sustainable- Held- No- Section 2

(44) and 2 (46) indicates that when trailer is

attached to tractor, it becomes goods vehicle and

therefore, IC is liable.

2012 ACJ 1408 (Kar), 2012 ACJ 2737 (All) SC

judgements followed. But also see 2013 ACJ 1496

wherein it is held that Tractor and Trolley are

two separate vehicles and if Trolley attached

with tractor is not insured and deceased was

travelling in the Trolley attached with tractor,

Insurance Company is not liable.

M.V. Act- Section 61, 146, 147- Tractor-

trolley- It is no doubt true that trolley is

required separate registration for commercial

use/purpose u/s 61 but as per Section 146, it

does not provide for separate insurance of

trolley. Once trolley is attached to the tractor,

it becomes one vehicle- IC of tractor is held

liable to pay compensation. - 2014 ACJ 1727 (All)

– UII v/s Suman (Rakesh Tiwari and Anil Kumar

Sharma JJ), 2015 ACJ 1078 (Chh), 2015 ACJ

1037(Del)

but also see 2014 ACJ 1583 (P&H) – NII Com

v/s Sohan lal.


2- Tractor- trolley- TP risk- Claimant was traveling in

Jeep- IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground

that Trolley was not insured- whether sustainable-

Held- no- claimant was TP for the tractor and even if

Trolley was not insured, IC is liable as addition of

trolley to tractor will not make any difference to the

claimant as he is TP for tractor

2012 ACJ 177.

3- Mudguard of tractor- Tractor was meant for

agricultural purpose- admittedly it was not used for

agricultural purpose when accident occurred- whether

IC is liable?- held – No.

2012 ACJ 1738. But order of pay and recover can

be passed – 2015 ACJ 1677 (Mad).

4- Tractor-trolley- When trolley is attached with the

tractor is one vehicle-

2012 ACJ 2022 and 2117 (CHH)

5- Tractor-trailer – Tractor-trolley- Goods vehicle -

Additional premium of 7 passengers paid under the

workmen compensation act – employee of hirer sustained

injuries – IC disputed its liability – Policy covers

vehicle as well as the employees engaged for its

operation – Under this situation, IC held liable to

pay amount of compensation.

2013 ACJ 994.

6- Labourer travelling on Tractor succumbed to injuries

sustained by him- IC disputed its liability on the

ground that deceased was a gratuitous passenger as no

trolley was attached with the tractor- whether

sustainable?- Held- No.

2013 ACJ 2034 (ALL) – SC judgment reported in

1987 ACJ 411, Skandia Ins. v/s Kokilaben

Chandravadan relied upon.

7- Tractor-trailer – IC disputed it's liability on the

ground that there sitting capacity of only one person

and therefore, claim could not have travelled in the

said tractor-trailer as labourer- whether sustainable?

- Held- No.

2013 ACJ 2331 (Kar)- Death of coolie travelling

on the mud-guard- 2013 ACJ 2353 (Mad) -


8- Tractor-trailer- Agricultural purpose- commercial

purpose- Difference between.

2014 ACJ 1254 (SC)- Fahim Ahmed v/s UII Com.,

2014 ACJ 2843 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 2083 (AP)

9- Tractor-trolley – Agricultural purpose - when accident

occurred sand was loaded on it – whether IC can avoid

its liability on the count that same was not used for

agricultural purpose?- Held No.- Unless same is proved

by leading cogent evidence, it not be held so.

2014 ACJ 1966 (All)

10- Tractor- trolley- TP risk- Claimant was traveling in

Jeep- IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground

that Trolley was not insured- whether sustainable-

Held- no- claimant was TP for the tractor and even if

Trolley was not insured, IC is liable as addition of

trolley to tractor will not make any difference to the

claimant as he is TP for tractor.

2012 ACJ 177.

HOME

4 7 . Registration of Vehicle/Number Plate:-1- Registration number of offending vehicle not disclosed

at the time of filling of FIR- driver of offending

vehicle, convicted by criminal court- vehicle number,

disclosed afterwards does not lead to the conclusion

that there is collusion between claimant and driver of

offending vehicle.

2012 ACJ 2176 (Del), Delay in filing FIR – 2015

ACJ 1483 (Raj).

2- Use of vehicle without the registration certificate-

temporary registration expired on the date of

accident- owner is not entitled to get anything under

the Own Damage Claim.

2014 ACJ 2421 (SC).

3- Registration Certificate- Expiry of- liability of IC-

non renewal if RC on the date of accident – same is

not illegality but irregularity and same will not

absolve IC from its liability.

2014 ACJ 2399 (Kant) But contrary view is taken

in 2014 ACJ 2665 (MP)


4- U/s 39 – Registration of vehicle – temporary

registration – expired before the date of accident –

under this circumstances, IC has to prove breach of

terms of Policy as envisaged in Section 149(2) of the

MV Act- if IC fails to prove this, it liable to pay

compensation first and then recover from Driver/owner.

2015 ACJ 236 (Kar)

HOME

4 8 . Stolen Vehicle:-1- Stolen vehicle- who was driving the vehicle not known-

vehicle recovered after the accident- whether in such

situation, IC can be held liable?- Held- Yes.

2014 ACJ 1165, also see Note No.375

2- Stolen property- fake registration number - number

plate- liability of IC- guideline-

2014 ACJ 1706 (Del)- UII Com. v/s Amaratta.

3- While searching for his lost/stolen jeep, owner meet

with the same jeep- whether IC can be held responsible

to pay compensation in such facts?- Held- No. As

additional premium was not paid.

2015 ACJ 107 (Guj) – OIC v/s Ganeshbhai

Gautambhai

HOME

49 . Hit and Run - Under Section 161:-1- Hit and Run case- claimant is entitled for only

Rs.25,000/-, as claim petition is not maintainable

against the unknown vehicle.

2011 ACJ 552 (SC)- Saroj v/s Het Lal. But in 2014

ACJ 859 (Guj) it is held that joint tortfeasor is

not required to be joined. (Jst.S.H. Vora,

Mayaben Ramanlal Jaiswal v/s Rajubhai Chimanlal

Jaiswal, FA 5431 to 5434 of 2008, dated

09/05/2013)

2- 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).


3- U/s 161(3) (4), 163, 165 and 166(1) of MV Act – Hit

and Run case - fixed compensation of Rs.25,000/-

claimant has not filed an application under the scheme

framed u/s 161 – whether an application for fixed

compensation of Rs.25,000/- is maintainabile before

the MACT?- Held- Yes.

2015 ACJ 203 (AP)

HOME

5 0 . Third Party:-1- Deceased boarded in wrong rout bus- asked conductor to

stop the bus- before the bus was stopped he jumped

from the bus and died- whether such person can be said

to be T.P? - Held- Yes-

212 AAC 2584 (Del)

2- Pedestrian hit by truck which had 'Act Policy'- TP

risk- tribunal directed IC to pay only 1.5 lac and

remaining amount of compensation was directed to be

paid by owner-driver- Whether sustainable?- Held- No.

-Since, higher premium had been paid for 'liability to

public risk i.e. third part- Though it was 'Act

Policy', IC is held liable to pay amount of

compensation.

2012 ACJ 2667- SC Judgments followed.

3- Mini bus hit pedestrian- Tribunal held that same was

insured as goods vehicle and exonerated IC- Whether

order is sustainable?- Held- No.- As claimant was TP

for the minibus and it does not make any difference if

the the vehicle was goods vehicle or passenger

vehicle.

2013 ACJ 1956 (All)

4- Deceased a TP- comprehensive policy- liability of IC-

after new act liability of IC is unlimited towards TP

2011 ACJ 1860 (RAJ)

HOME


5 1 . Disbursement and Apportionment:-1- Order of investment by the Tribunal after passing the

award- Tribunal cannot mechanically pass the order of

investment in cases other than minors, illiterate and

widows.

2012 (1) GLH 442 - A.V. Padma.

2- In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat

High Court in Muljibhal Ajarambhai Harijan v. United

India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1982 (1) 23 GLR 756, Supreme

Court offered the following guidelines

"(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of

minors, invariably order the amount of

compensation awarded to the minor invested in

long term fixed deposits at least till the date

of the minor attaining majority. The expenses

incurred by the guardian or next friend may

however be allowed to be withdrawn;

(ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the

Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set

out in (1) above, but if lump sum payment is

required for effecting purchases of any movable

or immovable property, such as, agricultural

implements, rickshaw etc., to earn a living, the

Tribunal may consider such a request after making

sure that the amount is actually spent for the

purpose and the demand is not a rouge to withdraw

money;

(iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the

Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the

procedure set out at (i) above unless it is

satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing,

that the whole or part of the amount is required

for expanding and existing business or for

purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii)

above for earning his livelihood, in which case

the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is

invested for the purpose for which it is demanded

and paid;

(iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal

may resort to the procedure indicated in (1)

above, subject to the relaxation set out in (ii)


and (iii) above, if having regard to the age,

fiscal background and strata of society to which

the claimant belongs and such other

considerations, the Tribunal in the larger

interest of the claimant and with a view to

ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded

to him thinks it necessary to do order;

(v) In the case of widows the Claims Tribunal should

invariably follow the procedure set out in (i)

above;

(vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is

necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied

about the same, which shall be recorded in

writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is

necessary for incurring the expenses for such

treatment;

(vii) In all cases in which Investment in long term

fixed deposits is made it should be on condition

that the Bank- will not permit any loan or

advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the

amount invested is paid monthly directly to the

claimant or his guardian, as the case may be;

(viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the

claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case

of an emergency. To meet with such a contingency,

if the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims

Tribunal may invest it in more than one Fixed

Deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R. can be

liquidated."

These guidelines should be borne in mind by

the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in

accident cases.

AIR 1994 SC 1631- Mrs. Susamma Thomas. Also

see Jaiprakash 2010 (2) GLR 1716

3- Apportionment of inter se liability in an order passed

u/s 140 of the Act- whether tribunal was justified in

apportioning the liability between the joint

tortfeasor?- Held- No.

2013 ACJ 959.

4- Apportionment of inter se liability in an order passed

u/s 140 of the Act- whether tribunal was justified in


apportioning the liability between the joint

tortfeasor?- Held- No.

2013 ACJ 959.

5- U/s 168- compensation- apportionment- widow, father

and mother- apportionment made in the ratio of 2:1:1-

deceased was aged about 33 years- Tribunal awarded

multiplier of 14- contention that father and mother

(aged above 65 years) would entitled for multiplier of

7 only- in that view of the matter, apportionment is

held to be valid and proper.

2012 ACJ 1093 (Ker)

6- Apportionment of inter se liability- whether tribunal

was justified in apportioning the liability between

the joint tortfeasor?- Held- No.

2015 ACJ 1441 (SC) – khenyei v/s NIA Com.(FB).

See also 2013 CJ 926 & 976.

HOME

52 FIR, Charge sheet, Involvement ofVehicle, Identity of Vehicle:-

1- Identification of vehicle- In FIR, offending vehicle

is described as Blue Colour bike whereas driver-owner

sought to avoid its liability on the count that bike

was of Red Colour- whether sustainable? -Held- No. SC

Judgments followed.

2012 ACJ 2529 (MAD).

2- Delay in filling of FIR- Whether on that count, claim

petition can be dismissed- Held- No.- Delay itself is

not sufficient to hold that claim petition is bogus.

2012 AAC 3334. - U.I.I. Com. v/s N. Srinivas.,

2014 ACJ 1419 (AP)

3- Involvement of the vehicle- Delay in filling FIR-

whether it can be the sole basis for arriving at the

conclusion the offending vehicle is planted? - Held-

No.- When chargesheet is filled, it cannot be doubted.

2013 ACJ 2376 (AP)

4- Whether filing of an FIR is sine qua none for filing

claim petition.- Held- No.

2014 ACJ 469 (Mad), 2014 ACJ 585 (Chh)


5- FIR- ordinarily averments made in the FIR would not be

admissible as evidence per se but when claimant has

produced it to prove his case, contents of such FIR

admissible.

2014 ACJ 1075

6- Whether mere filling of Chargesheet for offences

punishable u/s 3 and 122 of the Act against the driver

of the offending vehicle leads to the conclusion that

driver did not possess a licence and owner has

intentional breached the term sof the Policy. - Held-

No.

2013 ACJ 1501.

7- IC took defence that driver of the offending vehicle

was not possessing valid licence- Whether a criminal

case filed under section 3 and 18 of the M..V. Act is

sufficient to hold that driver of the offending

vehicle was not possessing valid licence? -Held- No.

2013 ACJ 1758 (MP)

8- Whether filing of Chargesheet against the driver u/s 3

and 181 of the MV Act, would lead to the conclusion

that driver was not hold the licence. Held- No. Unless

it is proved by leading cogent evidence by IC, it not

be presumed by Tribunal.

2013 ACJ 2539 (AP).

HOME

5 3 . Necessary Party:-1- Whether the driver of the offending vehicle is

required to be joined as party opponent in each case?-

Held- No- in absence of non-joinder of driver, entire

proceeding shall not vitiated, as owner of the vehicle

is joined.

2008 ACJ 1964 – Machindranath Kernath v/s D.S.

Mylarappa. - 2013 ACJ 109 (Bom)

2- Non joinder of other tortfeasor- whether mandatory? -

Held- No.

2014 ACJ 589 (Bom)- Oriental Insurance v/s Meena

Variyal, reported in 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC)

3- Whether the driver of the offending vehicle is

required to be joined as party opponent in each case?-


Held- No- in absence of non-joinder of driver, entire

proceeding shall not vitiated, as owner of the vehicle

is joined.

2008 ACJ 1964 – Machindranath Kernath v/s D.S.

Mylarappa. - 2013 ACJ 109 (Bom)

HOME

5 4 . Conductor’s Licence:-1- Conductor's licence- conductor sustain injuries while

his was in the bus and working as conductor-

conductor's licence had expired and not renewed-

liability of IC- IC cannot be held responsible.

2013 ACJ 397 (Kar)- SC judgments followed.

HOME

5 5 . Succession Certificate:-1- 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).

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).

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)

HOME


5 6 . Damage to property:-1- Damage to property – principles of assessment – India

and Foreign law discussed.

2016 ACJ 1134 (Ker)

1A- Claim petition for damage to the property- death of

elephant- Tribunal awarded amount of compensation of

Rs.5,39,100 including RS.1,20,000 for loss of income

from elephant- Held such an award is not justified

when claim petition is preferred for damage to the

property- Rs.1,20,000/- reduced by HC.

2013 ACJ 1279 (Ker)

2- Damage to the property- Tenant filed claim petition-

Tribunal dismissed it on the ground that tenant is not

the owner and eviction petition is pending- Whether

sustainable- Held- No.

2013 ACJ 1292 (Raj)

3- Damage to property- Truck dashed with auto rickshaw-

IC of truck liable to pay only Rs.6,000/- under the

Act but Tribunal can direct the IC to pay entire

amount and in return IC may recover the additional

amount from the driver and owner of Truck.

2013 ACJ 1830 (Jar)

4- Damage to goods loaded in the Truck- Whether IC is

liable to make good to such damage?- Held- No.- IC is

liable to make good for damage to the property of TP.

2014 ACJ 915 (HP).

5- Damage to property - limits of liability of IC – Jeep

sustained damage due to negligent driving of the

driver of the Truck – Truck was covered under the

comprehensive policy- Whether IC of truck is liable to

pay compensation to the owner of Jeep in excess of

Rs.6,000/-? - Held- No.

2015 ACJ 1579 (P&H)

6- Damage to vehicle – claim for compensation from

tortfeasors, held, maintainable even if owner of

vehicle has received any amount from IC under

comprehensive IP.

2015 (2) GLR 1446 – UII Com v/s Hasumatiben

Kanubhai Patel.


7- Tortfeasour gave in writing on the chit to claimant

that he would pay for the damage but later on refused

to pay – claimant filed civil suit on the basis of

such writing- whether civil suit is maintainable?-

Held- No. As provided u/s 16591) of the M. V. Act.

2016 ACJ 141 (Ker)

HOME

5 7 . Settlement:-1- Claim petition withdrawn under the belief that as per

the settlement all amount would be paid but same was

not paid after the withdrawal of the claim petition.-

Whether the fresh claim petition is bare as per the

principles of the res judicata? - Held- No.

2013 ACJ 1361 (Raj).

Same principle would apply if calim petition

preferred u/s 166 is withdrawn (even if without

premission to file a petition u/s 163A) and fresh

petition is filed u/s 163A of the M V Act. -

2016 ACJ 833 (P&H)

1-A Claimant sustained injuries and filed claim petition –

same was partly allowed – claimant subsequently

expired – his LR filed another claim petition claiming

loss of dependency- whether second petition is barred

under the principle of res judicata?- Held- No.

2016 ACJ 790 (Kar)

2- Settlement- Several claim petitions at two different

places- settlement arrived at place 'A'- IC disputing

its liability before the Tribunal at place 'B'-

whether sustainable- Held- No.- Principle of estoppal

u/s 115 of evidence act would apply.

2014 ACJ 1511 (Del).'

HOME


5 8 . Mediclaim:-

1- Mediclaim – when certain amount is paid under the

mediclaim policy, claimant can claim the said amount

the claim petition. - Held- No.

2013 ACJ 1437 (Mad), 2013 ACJ 2366 (Del), 2013

ACJ 2382 (Del), 2002 ACJ 1441 – Patricia Jean

Mahajan, 2013 ACJ, 2014 ACJ 320 (Del)

2- Mediclaim- claimant is only entitled for the amount of

premium paid by him and not the entire amount received

by him under the Mediclaim.

2013 ACJ 2609 (Del) N.I.Com. v/s R.K. Jain

HOME

59 . Did not Suffer Financial Loss/GovernmentServant:-

1- Though claim did not suffer any financial loss due to

vehicular injuries sustained by him, Apex Court has

granted compensation under the head of 'Loss of

Earning Capacity and Future Loss of Income'.

2013 ACJ 1459 (SC) – V. Sathu v/s P. Ganapathi

(Relied upon Ajay Kumar v/s Raj Kumar)

2- Injury Government servant- suffered 70% disablement

and, therefore, tendered VRS- awarded Rs.30 lacs by

the High Court.

2014 ACJ 442(MP),

Constable in Railway Police - 2016 ACJ 1117

(P&H) – Raj Kumar v/s Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC)

followed.

HOME


6 0 . Railway:-

1- Unmanned level crossing- accident by Train- whether

Rail authority is liable to pay compensation- Held-

Yes.

2013 ACJ 1653.

Requisition/Seizure of Vehicle by Government:-

2- Requisition of vehicle- IC disputed its liability on

the ground that the vehicle which met with an accident

was being used by Police department and deceased who

was plying the said vehicle was not employee of the

owner- neither party claimed that vehicle was

requisitioned from owner by state- under these

circumstances, IC held liable.

2013 ACJ 2065 (JHR), 2014 ACJ 1997 (Bih), 2014

ACJ 1269 (SC) – Purnya v/s State of Assam

Also see – when vehicle was requisitioned by

state for police duty and in the

militant/terrorist attack occupant sustains fatal

injuries – whether under these circumstances,

State can be held responsible – Held – Yes.

2015 ACJ 2862 (Gua)- judgment of SC in the

case of NIC v/s Deepa Devi, 2008 ACJ 705 (SC)

relied upon.

3- Jeep- Seized for alleged violation of NDPS Act- While

jeep was being taken for production- during transit

jeep capsized- whether owner can be held liable?-

Held- No- As owner had no control over the jeep.

2013 ACJ 721 (Ker) – SC judgment followed.

4- Towing of vehicle- Rickshaw was being town by and jeep

and truck dashed with rickshaw- whether jeep driver

can be held liable?- Held -Yes

2013 ACJ 595

HOME


6 1 . Overloading:-1- Carrying more passenger than the seating capacity-

Whether IC can avoid its liability on the count- Held-

No.2013 ACJ 2694 – SC judgment,- B.V. Nagaraju v/sO.I. Com, reported in 1996 ACJ 1178 relied upon.

2- Breach of policy and permit- overloading- order of pay

and recover passed.

2014 ACJ 385 (Mad).

3- Overloading- Overloading of transport vehicle is not

such a breach which can be said to be a breach in

terms of Section 149 (2) of MV Act.

2014 ACJ 2182 (Bom)

4- Passengers risk- overloading- truck loaded with coal

and carrying 12 passengers capsized- vehicle was

insured covering driver, cleaner and 6 coolies- IC

contended that truck was over loaded as it was

carrying more that 8 persons- IC contended that there

is breach of policy- whether IC can be held liable?-

held- yes- as IC has failed to show that carrying more

number of coolies would be treated as breach of policy

– if at all there is any breach of policy, it is not

so fundamental as to put end to the contract totally-

IC is bound to satisfy the highest six awards of

coolies

2012 ACJ 287








6– When IC failed to prove that accident occurred due to

overloading, IC can not be exonerated from its

liability to pay compensation.

2015 ACJ 2807 (Raj) – SC judgments B V Nagaraju

v/s OI Com, 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC) and NI Com v/s

Anjana Shyam, 2007 ACJ 2129 (SC) relied upon.

HOME


6 2 . Abate:-1- Original claimant/injured died natural death during

pendency of claim petition.- whether his/her LRs are

entitled for compassion? - Held -Yes, as claim

petition does not abate on the death of injured

victim.

1991 GLR 352, 2009 (2) GLH 217 Surpal Sing Gohil.

2014 ACJ 930 (AP). 2014 ACJ 1621 (Mad) –

Venkatesan v/s Kasthuri. 2014 ACJ 1754 (P&H),

2014 ACJ 1814 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 1452 (Bom)

2- Award in favour of dead person/claimant – award can

not be passed in favour of dead person – award set

aside with a direction to decide claim petition

afresh.

2015 ACJ 1261 (Del).

3- M V Act u/s 166 – Legal Representative Suits Act, 1855

u/s 1 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 u/s 306 – Claim

for personal injury filed u/s 166 of the M V Act would

abate if the inured dies for other reasons.

2015 (2) CCC 512 (All) – Smt. Saroj Sharam v/s

State of UP.

HOME

6 3 . Fitness Certificate:-1- Fitness certificate- whether IC can be exonerated on

the ground that owner of the vehicle was not having

fitness certificate- Held- No.

2014 ACJ 94 (All), 2014 ACJ 2711 (Kar), 2015 ACJ

2142 (Ker), 2016 ACJ 1109 (Ker)

2- Fitness Certificate- U/s 149 (2) read with Section 56

- on the date of accident, Fitness Certificate had

expired- whether in such situation IC can dispute its

liability?- Held- No.

2014 ACJ 2226 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 1768 (J&K)

HOME


6 4 . Labourer of Hirer:-

1- Pay and Recover- 19 Labourers of hirer and not of

owner were travelling in goods vehicle which met with

an accident- IC claimed that it is not liable as they

were not authorised to travel in the fateful vehicle-

risk of 8 labourers covered under the policy- owner

and IC held jointly and severally liable to 8

labourers and also directed to first pay to remaining

11 labourers, with a direct to recover.

2014 ACJ 672 (AP)- NI Com v/s Vempada Ramu dated

5.10.2012

2- Accident sustained by a delivery boy when he was

travelling in a delivery vehicle owned by his company-

HC turned down claim of the claimant on the ground

that injured was working as a clerk and risk of

labourer hired to load-unload goods is covered- IMT-17

is relied upon by the SC and held that IC is liable to

make good of the compensation.

2014 ACJ 681 (SC) (FB) – Hanumanagouda v/s UI

Com. Also other judgment on IMT-13 (Second

Driver)- 2014 ACJ 1032

Judgment on IMT 15 (Owner-cum-driver) – Even

if other person was driving the vehicle and owner

was travelling in the said vehicle as occupants,

then also IC is held liable to pay compassion as

per the policy. - 2014 ACJ 1862 (Mad).

Judgment on IMT 18 [as it stood in 2001 –

cleaner of the bus – Additional premium paid- IC

held not liable)] - 2014 ACJ 1920 (AP)

HOME


6 5 . IMT:-1- Accident sustained by a delivery boy when he was

travelling in a delivery vehicle owned by his company-

HC turned down claim of the claimant on the ground

that injured was working as a clerk and risk of

labourer hired to load-unload goods is covered- IMT-17

is relied upon by the SC and held that IC is liable to

make good of the compensation.

2014 ACJ 681 (SC) (FB) – Hanumanagouda v/s UI

Com. Also other judgment on IMT-13 (Second

Driver)- 2014 ACJ 1032,

Second Driver – 2016 ACJ 1186 (Guj)

Judgment on IMT 15 (Owner-cum-driver) – Even

if other person was driving the vehicle and owner

was travelling in the said vehicle as occupants,

then also IC is held liable to pay compassion as

per the policy. - 2014 ACJ 1862 (Mad).

Judgment on IMT 18 [as it stood in 2001 –

cleaner of the bus – Additional premium paid- IC

held not liable)] - 2014 ACJ 1920 (AP)

2- Owner-driver – Wife is a owner of the vehicle which

bing driven by deceased husband- whether husband can

be said to be third party for wife?- Held- No.- As he

stepped in to the shoe of the owner- Only entitled for

Rs.2,00,000.

2014 ACJ 1524 (UK). Also see 2014 ACJ 1574 (Del),

wherein it is held that as per IMT GR-36 personal

accident cover is available to the owner of

insured vehicle holding valid and effective

licence but anybody driving the vehicle with or

without permission of the owner cannot be taken

as owner-driver.

3- 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 these circumstances, IC held liable

to pay compensation.

2014 ACJ 2412 (Raj)

HOME


66 Use of Vehicle other than registeredfor:-

1- Vicarious liability- Master and Servant- accident

occurred when vehicle was used for personal used of

employee- Whether Master/Government can be held

responsible- Held- No.

2014 ACJ 1198

2- Tractor-trolley – Agricultural purpose - when accident

occurred sand was loaded on it – whether IC can avoid

its liability on the count that same was not used for

agricultural purpose?- Held No.- Unless same is proved

by leading cogent evidence, it not be held so.

2014 ACJ 1966 (All)

3- Whether wheeler loader is a 'motor vehicle'- Held-

Yes.

2014 ACJ 2584 (P&H)

4- IC disputed its liability on the ground that vehicle

was run on LPG- but failed to adduce any evidence in

this regard- Held IC is liable

2011 ACJ 2141 (MAD)

5- Tribunal exonerated IC on the ground that vehicle was

found to have two control system and same was used for

driving school- whether sustainable- held – no –IC led

no evidence that vehicle was used for diving school –

2011 ACJ 1632 (BOM)

HOME


6 7 . Central Motor Vehicles Rules:-

1- Central M.V. Rules, 1989, Rule-41- motor vehicle trade

certificate- when can be use?- Held- it could not be

used for purpose other than those mentioned u/r 41 of

the Rules and for carrying passengers.

2012 ACJ 2285 (Kar)

2- U/S 149(2), 170- IC need not to take permission of

Tribunal under section 170, if it is joined as

respondent and not just as notice

2011 ACJ 2729 (SC)- Shila Dutta

3- 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)

HOME


68. Miscellaneous:-1- Death of owner of offending vehicle prior to the date

of accident- whether in such situation, IC is liable

to pay compensation/- Held- Yes.

2013 ACJ 1576

2- Two Accident- in first accident, deceased sustained

serious injuries and while he was being taken to the

hospital for treatment, second accident occurred- both

the vehicles held liable in the accident.

2013 ACJ 896.

3- M.V. Act- duty of advocates- Guidelines- Good

judgment.

2013 ACJ 474.

4- U/s 166- Efficacious disposal of MACPs with minimum loss

of Judicial time- procedure and guideline stated.

2015 ACJ 514 (P&H).

5– Employee travelling in his company's vehicle, with the

permission of employer – As per IMT 59, if extra premium

is paid, IC can be held liable.

2015 ACJ 2845 (Kar)

6- Death of a dog in vehicular accident – whether claim

petition for the death of a dog is maintainable?- Held.

No.

2016 ACJ 665 (Raj)

7- Theft of vehicle – owner lodged an FIR after 7 days of

incident – IC repudiated claim on the ground that FIR is

filed after 48 hours – Whether sustainable?- Held- No.

2016 ACJ 892 (P&H)

HOME

* * * * *

* * *

*
