Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Section 110 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 110 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Pushpa Rani vs Anokha Singh Etc. on 19 May, 1975
In Pushpa Rani Chopra v. Anokha Singh 1975 ACJ 396 (Delhi), a truck was parked on the side of the road. It was stationary as its axle had broken down. The three deceased were riding on a motor cycle, who were the father, son and the daughter. It was a dark night and there was no street light on the road. At about 10.45 p.m. the motor cycle of the deceased dashed against the rear portion of the stationary truck which resulted in the death of all the three motor cycle riders. The claim petition was filed. The contention was raised on behalf of the respondents that the truck, at the relevant time, was stationary and in an unworkable condition and was not in use and, therefore, the accident cannot be said to have arisen out of the use of the vehicle and, therefore, the determination of the claim petition by the Tribunal was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The contention raised by the respondents was repelled by Delhi High Court with the following observations:
Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr vs Smt. Vatschala Uttam More on 17 July, 1991
9. The expression 'use of the motor vehicle' in the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More 1991 ACJ 777 (SC). In this case a collision between a truck and petrol tanker took place and the tanker turned turtle. The petrol leaked out of the tanker. After about 4 1/2 hours of the accident, the tanker exploded and caught fire resulting in injuries to, and death of, several persons assembled near it. The question that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was: whether the petrol tanker though lying turtle was in use at the time of the explosion and fire and whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? The Supreme Court, after considering the law on the point, in para 26 of the judgment, held that:
Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Krishna Roadways vs Madan Lal on 11 November, 1983
In Krishna Roadways, Nathdwara v. Madan Lal 1984 ACJ 263 (Rajasthan), deceased Someshwar was sitting on the front side of the seat near the engine in the lap of his maternal uncle. The radiator cap flew open with the force of steam and boiling water fell on the child resulting in his death due to extensive burns over the body. The question raised before the learned single Judge was that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim as it is not a motor accident as envisaged by Section 110-A of the Act. After interpreting the expression 'arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' the learned single Judge held that:
Padmanabhan Nair vs Narayanikutty And Anr. on 28 July, 1987
In Padmanabhan Nair v. Narayanikutty 1988 ACJ 58 (Kerala), the deceased was a passenger in the bus which was on a trip from Cannanore to Vellachal. When the bus reached near the place called Macheri Srambi, a petrol can kept in the gunny bag near the back seat of the bus caught fire from the biri thrown by a passenger in the bus. The deceased who was sitting on the back seat was severely burnt and died in the hospital as a result of the burn injuries sustained by him. The contention raised before the Division Bench of Kerala High Court was that the bus, as such, has not been involved in the accident and the accident did not arise out of the use of the vehicle and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim. Repelling this contention the Division Bench of Kerala High Court, in para 13 of the judgment, held that:
Motor Vehicles Third Party Insurance Rules, 1946
1