The liability of the owner of a vehicle for damages for any injury caused by the negligence of his driver, arises not under the Act, but under the common law of torts […]
Whether the damage or death by negligence is caused by the use of a motor vehicle or in some other manner, does not make any difference to the principle of liability in […]
The Motor Vehicles Act does not provide for any method of determination of the compensation. In Section 110-B it is provided that the Tribunal is to determine the just compensation. The language […]
In Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1930 The question, is can murder be an accident in any given case ? There is no doubt […]
There is a proviso added to this section by amendment of 1982 and it says that where such application makes a claim for compensation u/s 92A in respect of the death or […]
Consortium- SC explained the meaning and held Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial welfare legislation
September 18, 2018: While granting Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case of death Supreme Court Held: The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
September 05, 2018: MOTOR INSURANCE-Permanent disability should be reckoned as 67% to the whole body. However, after going through the evidence of the doctor who had treated the appellant and the medical records, we find that the assessment made by the tribunal about the extent of permanent disability at 60% to the whole body seems to be a possible view. We are not inclined to disturb the said finding and also because it has been justly affirmed by the High Court, being concurrent finding of fact. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation amount does not merit interference-APPEAL NOT ALLOWED.
Whether owner of vehicle would get benefit of insurance if meet with accidental death while driving illegally
It is an admitted
position that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question.
The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle
by the deceased. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The deceased
himself was responsible for the accident. The deceased being the owner of the
offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act. The
deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving. A
Claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or
negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident
on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the
insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, the respondents being the
LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
KEYWORDS:- Motor Accident Claim -Distinction between no-fault liability strict liability- DATE:- April 06, 2018 ACT:- Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal […]
KEYWORDS:- CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION -RATE OF INTEREST – DATE:- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Bhartiben Nayabha Ker and Ors Vs. Sidabha Pethabha Manke and Ors [Civil Appeal No 2697 of 2018 arising out […]