Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (2.76 seconds)
Chamansab S/O Ibrahimsab Jambagi vs Parappa S/O Nurendappa Ujjanshettar ... on 11 July, 2007 cites

Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another on 11 May, 1987

In so far as the first question is concerned, the apex court has, in Ramanbhai Prabhalbhai's case supra, dealt with the same at some length. In that case, a boy aged 14 was run over and killed by a State Transport Corporation bus. While alleging negligence of the bus driver, the brothers of the deceased claimed compensation, under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs. 32000 to the claimants. This was affirmed in an appeal, by the Corporation, before the High Court. In a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court it was contended that the Tribunal and the High court were in error in not taking note of the fact that the brothers of the deceased were not entitled to any compensation under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. On account of the divergence of opinion prevailing in respect of the question in various High Courts the Supreme Court examined the issue at length.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 518 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Megjibhai Khimji Vira And Anr. vs Chaturbhai Taljabhai And Ors. on 14 February, 1977

15. The apex court while approving the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Megjibhai's case supra, observed that in an Indian family brothers, sisters, brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread winner of the family and there is no justification to deny them compensation while referring to the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, which stands substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the brother of a person who dies in a motor accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A, as a legal representative of the deceased.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 115 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Mohammed Habibullah And Anr. vs K. Seethammal on 4 July, 1966

The third group of cases, namely, Mohammed Habibullah v. K. Seethammal ; Veena Kumari Kohli v. Punjab Roadways 1967 Acc CJ 297 (Punj) & Smt. Ishwari Devi Malik v. Union of India took the view that a claim for compensation arising out of the use of a motor vehicle would be exclusively governed by the provisions of Sections 110 to 110 F of the Act and bears no connection to claims under the 1855 Act and the Claims Tribunal need not follow the principles laid down under the latter Act. The Gujarat High Court, agreed with the view taken in the third group of cases above and accordingly held that the application made by the nephew of the deceased who died on account of a motor vehicle accident was maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Manjuri Bera vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr on 30 March, 2007

Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under Section 163-A. In a petition under Section 140 of the Act, the petitioner would have to satisfy the Tribunal (a) that an accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle, (b) which resulted in imminent disablement or death of a person and that (c) the claim is made against the owner and insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. These ingredients would be sufficient to entitle the claimant including the legal representative of a deceased victim, to receive the fixed sum prescribed under the Section without having to establish any other fact or circumstance. The Supreme Court in Smt. Manjuri Page 1592 Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2007 AIR SCW 1962 has held that a claim petition filed by a married daughter of a motor accident victim is maintainable and that she would be a legal representative as defined under Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that a legal representative, who is not dependent, is entitled to compensation, which would not be less than the liability under Section 140 of the Act. An opinion is also expressed that the "no fault liability" envisaged in Section 140 of the Act is distinguishable from the rule of "strict liability". The compensation amount is fixed and it is a statutory liability. It is an amount which could be deducted from an amount of compensation payable under a claim petition, also filed under Section 166 and that the Section is a Code by itself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 369 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1