Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Particulars
Page
No
Tort
Section 140
10
Jurisdiction
18
Legal Representative
21
Limitation
24
24
Negligence
27
10
Calculation of compensation-Quantum
32
11
Driving Licence
39
12
Private Investigator
52
13
14
53
54
15
54
16
55
17
Vehicle hired/leased
58
18
59
19
Avoidance Clause
63
20
64
21
Review
66
22
66
Compensation Act
23
Life Insurance:-
67
24
Medical Reimbursement
67
25
Family Pension
67
26
Compassionate Appointment
67
27
Pillion Rider
68
28
72
29
Driver-Owner
74
30
78
31
Private Vehicle
79
3
32
80
Permit
33
83
34
Transfer of Vehicle
84
35
85
36
Dishonour of Cheque
86
37
87
38
94
39
Cover Note
97
40
Hypothecation
97
41
100
42
101
43
Militant
Murder,
Accident
101
44
103
45
Stationary Vehicle
103
46
Tractor-Trolley
105
47
107
48
Stolen Vehicle
108
49
109
50
Third Party
110
51
110
52
113
53
Necessary Party
115
54
Conductors Licence
115
55
Succession Certificate
116
56
Damage to property
116
57
Settlement
117
58
Mediclaim
118
59
Did not
Servant
60
Railway
118
61
Overloading
119
62
Abate
120
63
Fitness Certificate
121
64
Labourer of Hirer
121
65
IMT
122
Suffer
Financial
Loss/Government
118
66
123
67
124
68
Miscellaneous
125
Tort
1 -Whether PWD is liable to pay compensation when it is proved
that roads are not maintained properly- held- yes- PWD is
liable on the ground of principle of res ipsa loquitor and
common law.
1987 ACJ 783 (SC)
2- U/s 163A, 166 & 158(6) of MV Act- claim petition- is it
necessary in all case for claimant to file claim petition?
Held no- report under section 158(6) is enough to treat the
same as claim petitionJai Prakash v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd, reported in 2010
(2) GLR 1787 (SC), 2011ACJ 1916 (BOM)
3- Medical negligence- sterilization operation- failure ofliability of State.
2013 ACJ 406 (HP)
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
deposition,
he
that
deposed
he
was
that
he
earning
was
Rs
7000
earning
Rs
p/m.
in
3000
p/m.-
NFL
application
not
filled
along
with
main
petition-
Devani)
Act,
tribunal
qua
as
negligence
constructive
of
the
res
driver
judicata,
is
binding
while
to
the
deciding
the
No.
264
of
2005
dated
15/02/2013,
Minor
Siddharth
Makranbhai.
2012 (2) GLH 465- Siddik U. Solanki.
Judgment delivered in the case of 2012 (2) GLH 465- Siddik U.
Solanki is modified First Appeal No.2103 of 2005 and allied
matters (Coram Jst. Akil Kuresi and Jst.Vipul Pancholi)
4-U/s
140-
Whether
amount
paid
u/s
140
of
the
can
be
Held- no-
scheme of act does not provide for the same2011 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
of
notice
neither
proves
objections
of
IC
nor
draws
any
adverse inference against insured2012 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 allowedGuideline.
2013 ACJ 1399 (P&H)
10- Whether failure of the driver to produce licence u/O 12,
R-8 of CPC
Execution
Attachment
of
residential
property/house-
Yes.-
Special
privilege
provided
under
CPC
is
not
10
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 Para 9.
13-
Tribunal
is
COURT
and
proceedings
before
it
are
Under Section 163-A of M.V. Act:1- U/S 166 & 163A- income of deceased more than Rs.40,000whether Tribunal can reject
no- Tribunal ought to have convert the same one u/s 166
2004 ACJ 934 (SC) but See 2014 ACJ 2434 (Gauhati)
2- Unknown assailant fired on driver while he was drivingtruck
dashed
with
tree-
whether
Tribunal
was
justified
in
held
yes-
negligence
is
not
required
to
be
11
neither
Section
163-A
nor
Section
166
Motor
Cycle,
would
be
applicable.
5-
The
deceased
was
traveling
on
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
Others,
(2008)
categorically
held
involved,
liability
the
that
SCC
in
of
736,
a
the
case
wherein,
where
insurance
it
has
been
third
party
is
company
would
be
governed
by
the
contract
qua
IP,
the
claim
of
the
12
is
involved.
The
decision
further
held
that
the
13
U/s
163A-
maintainable
whether
without
the
joining
claim
the
petition
owner
and
u/s
163A
driver
of
is
the
U/s
163A-
claimants are
deceased
entitled
died
due
to
heart
attack-
whether
died
due
to
heavy
burden
or
there
any
other
Homicide-
Altercation
between
conductor
and
14
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
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?- HeldNo.
2012 ACJ 1687
16-
U/s
163A-
Claim
petition
under
163A
is
maintainable
15
U/s
163A-
whether
driver
of
the
offending
vehicle
is
U/s
163A-
collision
between
two
vehicles-
joint
163A-
whether
court
can
go
into
the
legality
and
16
cannot pursue
them simultaneously
- Claim
petition finally
The
law
laid
down
in
Minu
B.
Mehta
v.
Balkrishna
vehicle,
compensation,
as
indicated
in
the
Second
Unknown
vehicle-whether
claim
petition
u/s
163A
is
163A,
after
getting
an
amount
under
section
140
is
17
28- Claim petition u/s 166 and 163-A- An application u/s 163A
is
allowed-
Whether
claim
petition
u/s
166
is
then
18
Accident
occurred
in
Nepal
while
deceased
was
on
In
accident
against
claimant
one
of
vehicle
the
preferred
got
IC-
another
damaged-
claim
petition,
application
claim
petition
partly
against
filed
allowed-
another
IC-
19
Jurisdiction-
maintainable?-
Damage
Held-
to
No-
property
tribunal
of
has
owner-
whether
jurisdiction
to
aside
jurisdiction
appropriate
of
-
award
Would
Tribunal
on
ground
of
only
result
S.C.
would
lack
in
of
territorial
re-trial
exercise
before
powers
under
Jurisdiction
of
Claims
Tribunal
Claim
for
loss
of
20
was
registered
in
India-
Whether
claim
petition
is
Estoppel-
Consumer
court
held
that
driver
was
holding
Whether
IC
can
take
same
defence
before
the
MAC
prior
to
the
said
deletion-
claim
petition
filed
Limitation
claim
petition
filed
in
2005,
whereas
Tribunal
dismissed
claim
petition
on
the
ground
that
accident is not proved- whether Tribunal erred?- held- yesTribunal 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)
21
dependent- whether
claim
petition preferred
by
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 CPCwords used u/s 166 of MV Act are legal representative and not
Dependants- therefore, includes earning wife and parents alsofurther 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)
22
5- Legal representative- live in relationship- second wifewhether she is entitled for compensation, when first wife is
living? - Held- Yes.
2012
ACJ
2586
(AP).
2011
(1)
SCC
141
(live
in
in
on
the
natural
death
of
the
one
of
the
joint
SC
judgment
in
the
case
of
Rukhsana
v/s
23
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- Yes2013 ACJ 2708 (P&H)
10-
Legal
representative-
charitable society
who
death
of
renounced
member
of
the world-
registered
whether, claim
Remarriage
of
Widow-
Whether
dis-entitled
her
to
get
Legal heirs
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
children of deceased
from
to
the
first
marriage
recovery.
2014 ACJ 2504(All)
are
directed
file
suit
for
24
14- Legal representative- live in relationship- second wifewhether she is entitled for compensation, when first wife is
living? - Held- Yes.
2012
ACJ
2586
(AP).
2011
(1)
SCC
141
(live
in
in
25
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
applicability
vehicle
of
owner
Workmen's
and
insurer
Compensation
to
Act
be
-
decided
accident
of
of
the
accident
Tribunal
dismissed
claim
petition
sustainablestatutory
held
provisions
No-
Clause
of
Section
of
policy
167,
which
cannot
gives
26
corporation
deceased died
of
which
deceased
was
the
employee-
as
M.V.
Doctrine
of
election-
whether
claimant
can
claim
followed.
27
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
Confessional
statement
made
by
driver
of
the
offending
Composite
accident
negligence-
occurred
between
non-joinder
two
of
vehicles-
joint
tortfeasor-
claimant
impleaded
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,
claimant
Tribunal's
to
join
the
is
duty
other
bound
to
tortfeasor
either
or
pass
direct
the
the
award
independent
action
against
other
tortfeasor
for
28
Collision
driving
of
between
tanker-
Tanker
owner
and
and
Jeep-
driver
rash
of
and
jeep
negligent
not
joined-
Contributory
negligence-
Child-
Child
cannot
be
held
29
of
the
Criminal
Court
is
binding
on
the
Claims
in
the
accident
and,
therefore,
IC
may
be
on
the
Tribunal
but
if
claimant
has
admitted
his
30
negligence
in
Criminal
Proceeding,
same
is
binding
on
the
under
the
Tribunal.
2013 ACJ 2257 (Del)
17-
Negligence-
influence
of
Contributory
the
negligence-
Alcohol-
Guidelines
driving
for
assessment
of
negligence.
2013 ACJ 2349 (Chh)
18-
Res
judicate-
negligence-
when
findings
giving
in
the
Under
the
influence
of
liquor/alcohol
Negligence-
to
decide
quantum
of
negligence
in
case
where
31
and recover as
32
Transport
Corporation.,
2014
ACJ
1430
(SC)
(FB)
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 disablement2011 ACJ 2436 (SC)
5- House wife- quantum- Rs 3,000/- p/m awarded
33
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 incomewhether HRA, CCA and MA, paid by employer should be taken in
to consideration held- yes2011 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) 529Shyam 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
v/s
NI
(Civ) 766
8-Loss of dependency- deceased lady aged 31- claimant husband,
not
financially
dependent
on
the
deceased-
whether
he
is
deducted
1/3
from
the
income
of
decease-
34
/s
168-
compensation-
statutory
provisions
clearly
Receipt
of
income
in
foreign
currency-
Pound-
Dollar-
manager-
in
fact,
manager
was
appointed
and
paid
35
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.
19- Future income in the case 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
Views
First
says
that
multiplier
of
would
be
36
whereas second view says that 25% of the salary income should
be considered-
in
Kalpanaraj
v/s
TSRTC,
2014
ACJ
1388
(SC).
Also
followed in Kala Devi v/s Bhagwan Das Chauhan, 2014 ACJ 2875
(SC)
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
37
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
38
Accountant)
whether
same
is
admissible
in
received
on
the
awarded
amount
of
compensation,
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
39
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
Kishore Dan
upon?by
held-
no-
private
unapproved
person
cannot
verification
be
treated
report
as
public
document
2011 ACJ 2138 (DEL)
2- IC took defense that driver was
mere
marking
of
reliance
exhibit
on
does
the
not
exhibited
dispense
driving
with
the
licenceproof
of
40
Driving
licence-
DL
issued
on
7.8.79-
renewed
for
the
between
27.7.95
to
17.11.98-
accident
occurred
on
tenure
of
DL
does
not
attract
provisions
for
authorized officer of
41
Chapter
XI
of
the
Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
providing
driver
or
invalid
driving
licence
of
the
driver,
as
42
in
not only
the
said
establish the
proceedings
available defence(s)
but
must
also
establish
of
the
accident.
The
Tribunals
in
interpreting
the
concept
of
"fundamental
breach"
to
allow
defences
The
question,
as
to
whether
the
owner
has
taken
the
requirements
of
law
or
not
will
have
to
be
a learner's
licence, the
insurance companies
43
insurer
and
driver
on
the
other
(this
view
is
of
adjudicating
the
claim
for
compensation
and
to
arrives
satisfactorily
provisions
of
at
proved
Sec.
conclusion
its
defence
149(2)
read
that
in
the
insurer
accordance
with
sub-sec.
has
with
(7),
the
as
and
sub-sec.
(5)
which
are
intended
to
cover
44
specified
insurer
to
contingencies
recover
the
mentioned
amount
paid
therein
to
enable
the
under
the
contract
of
regular
circumstances
Court
in
adjudication
cases
of
where
their
on
claims
given
facts
inter
se
and
might
45
of
contract
insurance
company
will
have
no
the
second
respondent-owner
of
the
scooter
and
two
wheeler
scooter
but
had
driving
licence
of
where
the
insurers
relying
upon
the
provisions
of
of
of
the
a
insurer
third
to
satisfy
party
the
is
decree
passed
in
also
statutory.
46
Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
S.
149(2)(a)(ii)
motor
47
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
social
welfare
legislation
to
extend
relief
of
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
48
are
required
Even
when
insurer
is
held
not
Contention
that
driver
of
offending
vehicle
was
not
ACJ
2468-
2004
ACJ
-1
and
2001
ACJ
843
both
SC)
followed.
16- U/s 149(2) (a) (ii) and 149 (4)- driving licence- policywillful breach- burden of proof- on whom- Held on IC- it is
for the IC to prove that driver did not hold the DL to drive
the class of vehicle or DL was fake and breach was conscious
and willful on the part of insured to avoid its liability.
2012 ACJ 1268 (Del). Various SC decisions referred to.
17- Driving licence- DL expired before the date of accident
and
renewed
thereafter-
clause
in
police
provides
that
person who holds or has held and not been disqualified from
holding
an
effective
driving
licence
is
entitled
to
drive
DL-
driver
was
not
holding
valid
DL
at
the
time
of
49
2012 ACC 2635 (Del) and 2012 AAC 2895 (Mad) SC judgments
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
whether
under
this
circumstances,
fake
Corporation
can
50
163A or an
liability-held-
No.
Swaran
Singh
is
followed-
Copy
is
mere
marking
of
reliance
exhibit
on
does
the
not
exhibited
dispense
driving
with
the
licenceproof
of
51
not
delivery
driver
van,
was
which
not
caused
holding
accident-Tribunal
valid
licence-
held
whether
limit
of
7500kgs-
lastly
held
that
driver
was
2259 (All), 2014 ACJ 2471 (Guj), 2014 ACJ 2703 (P&H)
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
52
upon?-
obtained
by
heldprivate
no-
unapproved
person
cannot
verification
be
treated
as
report
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 documentTribunal
relied
upon
the
report
of
investigator-
order
53
of
proviso
cleaner
(i)
(c)
engaged
of
on
section
goods
147(1)
vehicle
of
MV
is
Act?
covered
Held-
by
yes-
Helper-
Act
Policy-
whether,
helper
can
be
treated
as
Death
of
helper-
excavator
dashed
with
the
pillar
and
the
hirer
and
therefore,
IC
is
not
liable
Whether
54
Premium and Additional Premium:1- Act policy- goods vehicle- payment of additional premiumwhether 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
for
the
act
liability-
whether
in
this
case
Payment
of
premium
was
made
on
6.12.2003-
IC
received
animal-
cattle-
claimant
travelling
along
with
his
55
Goods
vehicle
vehicleafter
owner/labourers
unloading
the
coming
goods
back
to
in
the
the
same
particular
liable-
held-
yes-
as
claimant
cant
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- yesowner 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.
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
56
dashed
with
Tractor
B-
passengers
of
Marriage
party
along
with
dowry
articles
in
the
goods
by
its
driver,
came
under
the
wheels
thereof
57
excluding
thus,
claim,
gratuitous
digging
not
earth
maintainable
passenger,
considering
of
not
empowrish
and
as
covered
condition
brick-kiln
respondent
under
and
S.
purpose
was
147
mere
however,
disability,
insurer
Whether
IC
is
liable
in
case
where
passenger
were
held Yes -
Whether
the
owner
of
goods
who
were
returning
after
Pay
and
recover
order
by
Tribunal
when
deceased
was
gratuitous
passenger
is
held
to
third
party.
2012
ACJ
liability
of
1661(J&K)
12-
Goods
Vehicle-
gratuitous
passenger-
58
Comprehensive
Policy
Package
Policy-
IMT
37-
Good
the
instruction
of
the
conductor,
who
is
employee
of
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.
3-
Vehicle
on
lease-
Owner
leased
his
vehicle
to
State
59
vehicle subject to
Owner-Hirer
Van
hirer
by
courier
company
under
an
Which kind of licence required for LMV-LGV-HGV-HTV-MGV:1- Driver was holding licence to ply light motor vehicledrove pick up jeep which is transport vehicle- whether IC is
liable- held- no- w.e.f
not
liability of
IC-
light motor
vehicle-
driver had licence to ply auto rickshaw and was driving auto
rickshaw
that
delivery
driver
was
van,
not
which
caused
holding
accident-Tribunal
valid
licence-
held
whether
60
permissible
limit
of
7500kgs-
lastly
held
that
driver
was
2259 (All), 2014 ACJ 2471 (Guj), 2014 ACJ 2703 (P&H)
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
which
did
not
conform
to
the
particular
category-
61
Annappa
endorsement
O.I.Com.
Irappa
is
v/s
Nesaria
required
Angad
Kol
from
(wherein
it
28.03.2001),
(wherein
it
is
is
held
that
2009
ACJ
1141,
held
that
for
non
62
- S. Iyyappa
Held-
Yes.
2008
ACJ
721(SC)-
Annappa
Irappa
Nesaria.
2014 ACJ 1828 (Raj)
12- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - u/s. 149, 163A, 166 and 170 Vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle - Driver was holder
of licence to drive LMV - Driver not holding licence to drive
commercial
vehicle
Breach
of
contractual
condition
of
Taxi
compensation.
and,
therefore,
IC
is
not
liable
to
pay
63
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 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)
Avoidance Clause:1-
Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1939
S.
96
motor
accident
64
of
policy
held,
considering
avoidance
clause
in
Injuries and Disabilities:1- Injury case- doctor assessed disability as 75%- doctor was
cross examined at length but nothing adverse was traced outTribunal
and
HC
assessed
disability
at
50%,
without
there
Rudra
Leg
injuries
resulted
in
fracture-
Doctor
access
by
holding that same did not result into permanent disablementSC 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-
65
Amputation-
left
hand-
Calculation
of
amount
of
compensation2014 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
66
jeep
met
with
accident-
fatal-
contention
Employee
insured
under
the
ESI
Scheme-
Whether
claim
claim
against
petition
employer.
is
ESI
maintainable
Act
does
when
not
bar
it
is
right
not
filed
to
claim
67
68
2012 ACJ 1114 (Ker) Family pension is also like wise- 2012
ACJ 1197(Bom)
(2)
GLH
246.-
Girishbhai
Devjibhai,
2012
AAC
3065
in
the
case
of
LIC
v.
L.R.
of
deceased
Naranbhai,
own
benefit
benefit
and
and
such
with
benefit
his
own
could
money,
not
be
is
deducted
collateral
from
the
Dayaljibhai Manibhai
Patel v.
Erachsha Dhanjisha
Pillion Rider:1-
Pillion
rider-
Act
Policy-
liability
of
IC-
death
of
did
not
cover
risk
of
pillion
rider
and
gratuitous
passenger
2003 ACJ 1 (SC), 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), 2009 ACJ 104 (SC)
69
drivers
were
negligent
in
causing
accident
and
their
respective blame being 75:25 between bus driver and mopedwhether pillion rider is responsible for accident?- held- yesas 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)
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
gratuitous
passenger
and
70
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
third
party
when
the
Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
S.
147,
157,
217
motor
not
cover
the
risk
of
death
of
or
bodily
injury
to
further,
failure
to
intimation
for
the
transfer
of
the
71
lights-
sustainable?-
Tribunal
Held-
exonerated
Yes-
Only
rider
because
of
bike-
rider
of
whether
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
gratuitous
passenger
and
was
not
to
be
treated
as
third
party
when
the
72
Commencement of Policy and Breach of Policy: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
existence-
i.e.4.5.97,
whether
IC
there
is
was
liable-
not
effective
held-
yes-
policy
in
contract
of
to
19.5.86-
IP
does
not
speak
about
the
time
of
on
the
ground
that
police
has
not
come
into
of
premium
is
paid/made
and
it
does
not
make
any
73
difference
when
policy
is
made
effective.-
2013
ACJ
2493
74
words
explained.
In
such
situation,
IC
is
liable
to
pay
extra
premium
was
paid
and
IC
has
deliberately
not
IC failed
to discharge its burden and prove that policy was Act policy
and ICs liability was restricted to statutory liability- IC
held liable
2011 ACJ 2275 (SIK)
75
Insurance
Company
claim
petition
under
S.
166
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
property
heading
'Own
of
third
damage'
party
is
for
whether
covering
premium
paid
liability
under
towards
cover
liability
towards
personal
injury
premium
is
76
Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
S.
147
question
for
property
heading
'Own
of
third
damage'
party
is
for
whether
covering
premium
paid
liability
under
towards
Managing
Trustee
died
in
the
accident-
Vehicle
was
-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.
77
he
sustained
injuries-
IP
cover
risk
of
Driver-Owner-
IMT GR-36
licence
but
anybody
driving
the
vehicle
with
or
Owner-cum-driver
Additional
premium
of
Rs.2,00,000/-
78
14-
Driver-
on
deputation-
whether
temporary
employer
is
by
driver
and
accident
occurred
and
owner
sustain
injuries whether IC is liable to pay compensation?- HeldNo. As owner cannt be held to be Third Party.
2014 ACJ 2869 (AP)
followed.
16- Jeep driven by father of the owner- policy covers only six
passengers- actually
in to ditch resulting death of all passengers- IC is liablenot for all claimant- IC is directed to pay compensation and
further ordered to
whether sustainable-
Held- No-
As policy
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
79
allowed claim petition partly- whether sustainable- held- yesas IC failed to prove that deceased was not holding the valid
tickets2011 ACJ 2156 (ALL)- also see 2014 ACJ 17 (P&H), 2014 ACJ 2690
(MP)
2-
Travelling
on
the
roof
top-
whether
it
is
case
of
of
liability
held-
inmates
on
terms
of
private
the
ground
in
policy
vehicle-
that
deceased
which
IC
cannot
was
discriminate
paid
avoid
its
passenger-
liability
of
80
4-
Act
Policy-
private
vehicle-
liability
of
insurance
vehicle-
Package
policy-
comprehensive
policy-
Yes. -
National Insurance
company v/s
vehicle-
owner
of
private
car
died
due
the
joined
only
IC-
whether
in
such
situation,
her
claim
Permit:1-
IC
seeks
to
avoid
its
liability
on
the
ground
that
81
time
vehicle
of
insuring
without
valid
the
vehicle-
permit
IC
cannot
having
seek
insured
exemption
the
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 rewardmere
expiry
of
permit
would
not
absolve
IC
to
pay
82
driver
of
offending
vehicle
was
not
possessing
IC
seeks
to
avoid
its
liability
on
the
ground
that
83
time
vehicle
of
insuring
without
valid
the
vehicle-
permit
IC
cannot
having
seek
insured
exemption
the
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)
84
prove
that
registration
Jeep
was
certi.
used
All
for
such
hire
persons
and
reward-as
come
within
per
the
the
Tribunal
without
filing
separate
execution
Transfer of Vehicle:1- Death of the owner of the offending vehicle, prior to the
accidentdeemed
to
whether
be
the
covered
transferee
by
policy
in
possession
and
Tribunal
has
to
be
erred
in
85
exonerating the IC from liability-held- yes- IC held liablefurther 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
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
86
Dishonour of Cheque:1-
Dishonour
of
cheque
issued
towards
premium-
policy-
cheque to
Insurer on
23/1/1995, towards
Insurance
Policy
was
cancelled
However,
on
contract
being
without
consideration,
need
not
be
within
the
purview
of
definition
of
"Certificate
of
account
of
Cancellation
dishonor
of
of
Insurance
cheque
for
policy
premium
by
-
insurer
The
fact
on
of
87
RTO
Accident
occurred
thereafter
Held,
Insurance
Pay and Recover:1- Jeep driven by father of the owner- policy covers only six
passengers- actually
in to ditch resulting death of all passengers- IC is liablenot for all claimant- IC is directed to pay compensation and
further ordered to
88
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
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
separate
execution
89
5- 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
in to ditch resulting death of all passengers- IC is liablenot for all claimant- IC is directed to pay compensation and
further ordered to
90
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
9- 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
separate
execution
91
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)
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
valid
driving
licence,
then
the
Insurance
Company
after
decided.
The
High
Court
rightly
chose
not
to
license
respondent
no.
compensation
and
were
of
Rs.
driver
2,68,800
and
owner
awarded
of
bus
92
issued
to
appellant/IC
recover the
same from
to
deposit
amount
respondents
and
that
it
can
appellant/IC deposited
to
file
Tribunal
same
is
suit
instead
of
not
sustainable-
filling
EP
is
EP
issued
held
to
by
be
inherent
power
of
Tribunal-
Section
168
of
the
Motor
Even
when
insurer
is
held
not
liable,
it
will
93
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 MinorLiability 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
Pay
and
recover
order
by
Tribunal
when
deceased
was
gratuitous
1661(J&K)
passenger
is
held
to
third
party.
2012
ACJ
94
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
Motor
Cycle,
would
be
applicable.
2-
The
deceased
was
traveling
on
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
Others,
(2008)
categorically
held
involved,
liability
the
that
SCC
in
of
736,
a
the
case
wherein,
where
insurance
it
has
been
third
party
is
company
would
be
governed
by
the
contract
qua
IP,
the
claim
of
the
95
is
involved.
The
decision
further
held
that
the
u/s
belonged
163Ato
accident
the
brother
between
of
scooter
claimant-
and
whether
car-
scooter
claimant
is
96
personal accident
cover of
Rs.1,00,000/-
Whether
into
the
shoe
of
the
owner
are
entitled
for
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).
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.
97
Cover Note:1- 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
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
98
contract
being
without
consideration,
need
not
be
within
the
purview
of
definition
of
"Certificate
of
Porselvi -followed
4--
Cover
Note-
IC
did
not
produced
any
ledger
or
other
Dispute
with
regard
to
Cover-note
IC
dispute
it's
99
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
driver's
legal
compensation
vehicle
met
heirs
filed
against
appellant-Insurance
Commissioner
the
with
an
directed
payment
driver
application
widow
Company
accident
of
the
for
deceased
Workmen's
of
compensation
died
grant
and
of
the
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
Hypothecation-
finance
company
is
compensation.
2015 ACJ 1 (SC) HDFC Bank Resham (FB)
not
liable
to
pay
100
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 vehicleRight 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
IP
stands,
deemed
to
be
transfer
in
the
name
of
transfer
of
transferee- IC is liable.
2013 ACJ 2235 (Mad)
3-
U/s
157(1)
certificate
of
Transfer
insurance-
of
vehicle-
Whether
IC
Deemed
can
be
held
liable?
-Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 818 (Ker), 2015 ACJ 714
4- Transfer of the vehicle- certificate of insurance once
possession
is
taken
over
by
the
transferee
along
with
101
has
free
and
easy
access
is
public
place,
Attack
Murder,
Heart
petition
is
maintainable?
Held-
No-
SC
decisions
referred to.
2012 ACJ 1188 (Chht)
2- Murder- Application u/s 163A- whether maintainable?- Held
-yes.
2012 ACJ 1512 (Ker)
102
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- HeldNo. 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
5-
Militant
Attack-
Hijack-Terrorist
Attack-
Fatal
in
the
contrary view
Blast
in
Bus,
resulting
death
of
several
passengers-
103
7-
U/s
163A-
claimants are
deceased
died
entitled
due
to
heart
attack-
whether
died
due
to
heavy
burden
or
there
any
other
Homicide-
Altercation
between
conductor
and
petition
is
maintainable?
Held-
No-
SC
decisions
referred to.
2012 ACJ 1188 (Chht)
Dismiss for Default:1- Dismiss for Default- DD- whether claim petition preferred
under
the
MV
Act
can
be
dismissed
for
default
after
the
104
1- U/s 149(2) (a) (ii) and 149 (4)- driving licence- policywillful 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
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- NoEven 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
105
dashed on the rear portion of the said stationary vehiclewhether IC of said vehicle can avoid its liability ? Held- No.
2013 ACJ 56 (Del), 2013 ACJ 1960 (AP), 2013 ACJ 2781 (P&H),
1986 ACJ 1070 (Guj)
Tractor-Trolley:1-
Tractor-trailer-
Tractor-trolley-
worker
sustained
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
travelling in
tractor
is
the Trolley
not
insured
attached with
and
deceased
was
tractor, Insurance
106
Tractor-trolley-
When
trolley
is
attached
with
the
Tractor-trailer
Additional
premium
(CHH)
of
Tractor-trolley7
passengers
paid
Goods
under
vehicle
the
workmen
Labourer
travelling
sustained by him-
on
Tractor
succumbed
to
injuries
107
2013 ACJ 2331 (Kar)- Death of coolie travelling on the mudguard- 2013 ACJ 2353 (Mad) 8- Tractor-trailer- Agricultural purpose- commercial purposeDifference between.
2014 ACJ 1254 (SC)- Fahim Ahmed v/s UII Com., 2014 ACJ 2843
(Mad)
9-
Tractor-trolley
Agricultural
purpose
when
accident
the
time
of
filling
convicted
by
afterwards
does
of
criminal
not
lead
FIR-
driver
courtto
the
of
vehicle
offending
number,
conclusion
that
vehicle,
disclosed
there
is
108
2-
Use
of
vehicle
without
the
registration
certificate-
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
this,
it
liable
to
pay
compensation
first
and
then
Stolen Vehicle:1- Stolen vehicle- who was driving the vehicle not knownvehicle
recovered
after
the
accident-
whether
in
such
109
Hit
and
Run
case-
claimant
is
entitled
for
only
for
fixed
compensation
of
Rs.25,000/-
is
110
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- Yes212 AAC 2584 (Del)
2- Pedestrian hit by truck which had 'Act Policy'- TP risktribunal directed IC to pay only 1.5 lac and remaining amount
of
compensation
was
Whether sustainable?been
paid
for
directed
to
Held- No.
'liability
to
be
paid
-Since,
public
by
owner-driver-
higher premium
risk
i.e.
third
had
part-
Mini
bus
hit
pedestrian-
Tribunal
held
that
same
was
Disbursement and Apportionment:1-- Order of investment by the Tribunal after passing the
award-
Tribunal
cannot
mechanically
pass
the
order
of
111
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,
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
will
ensure
that
the
amount
is
invested
for
the
112
the
claimant
belongs
and
such
other
considerations,
the
In
the
case
of
widows
the
Claims
Tribunal
should
In
personal
injury
cases
if
further
treatment
is
permit
any
loan
or
advance
on
the
fixed
deposit
and
with
such
contingency,
if
the
amount
awarded
is
113
and
about
33
years-
Tribunal
awarded
multiplier
of
14-
in
apportioning
the
liability
between
the
joint
114
115
joined
as
party
opponent
in
each
case?-
Held-
No-
in
ACJ
589
(Bom)-
Oriental
Insurance
v/s
Meena
Variyal,
joined
as
party
opponent
in
each
case?-
Held-
No-
in
IC cannot be
116
on
the
natural
death
of
the
one
of
the
joint
SC
judgment
in
the
case
of
Rukhsana
v/s
Damage to property:1-
Claim
petition
elephant-
for
Tribunal
Rs.5,39,100
awarded
including
elephant-
Held
petition
is
such
damage
to
amount
RS.1,20,000
an
preferred
award
for
the
is
propertyof
compensation
for
loss
not
justified
damage
to
death
of
income
when
of
of
from
claim
the
property-
claim
petition-
Damage
to
the
property-
Tenant
filed
117
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
Settlement-
places-
Several
settlement
liability
before
sustainable-
Held-
arrived
the
No.-
claim
at
petitions
place
Tribunal
Principle
at
of
'A'-
at
IC
place
two
different
disputing
'B'-
estoppal
u/s
its
whether
115
of
118
Did not Suffer Financial Loss/Government Servant:1- Though claim did not suffer any
financial loss
due to
119
120
loaded
as
it
was
carrying
more
that
persons-
IC
liable?-
held-
yes-
as
IC
has
failed
to
show
that
in to ditch resulting death of all passengers- IC is liablenot for all claimant- IC is directed to pay compensation and
further ordered to
Abate:1-
Original
claimant/injured
died
natural
death
during
121
930 (AP). 2014 ACJ 1621 (Mad) Venkatesan v/s Kasthuri. 2014
ACJ 1754 (P&H), 2014 ACJ 1814 (Mad)
that
owner
of
the
vehicle
was
not
having
fitness
Labourer of Hirer:1- Pay and Recover- 19 Labourers of hirer and not of owner
were travelling in goods vehicle which met with an accidentIC 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
labourers
and
also
directed
to
first
pay
to
122
(AP)
123
IMT GR-36
licence
but
anybody
driving
the
vehicle
with
or
Comprehensive
Policy
Package
Policy-
IMT
37-
Good
Use of Vehicle other than for registered: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--
124
driving
Central
M.V.
Rules,
1989,
Rule-41-
motor
vehicle
trade
per
Section
2(44),
by
definition
Tractor
is
LMV
and,
125
therefore, when driver has licence to ply LMV, he can also ply
Tractor.
2014 ACJ (P&H)
whether
in
such
situation,
IC
is
liable
to
pay