Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001
These, or other witnesses, who could have brought out the relationship between the owner and Shijo, were not produced by the petitioner herein, before the Tribunal. The petitioner has, therefore, not discharged the onus which rested on its shoulders. Since the relationship between the Shijo and the owner has not been established, nor the capacity in which he was riding the vehicle has been brought out, it is not possible for us to conclude, that Shijo while riding the motorcycle on the fateful day, was an agent, employee or representative of the owner. It was open to the petitioner to defeat the claim for compensation raised by the respondents by establishing, that the rider Shijo represented the owner, and as such, was not a third party, in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited case (supra). The petitioner failed to discharge the said onus. In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accede to the second contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Section 123 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Sinitha & Ors on 23 November, 2011
After Sinitha's case, cited supra, negligence is now held to be an aspect which has to be adjudicated in a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the insurance company comes forward to plead and prove that there was fault on the part of the claimant and as per the decision in Sinitha's case, this Court is not inclined to assess the compensation to the victim, under other heads.
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 163 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Shri Laxman Iyer And Anr on 27 October, 2003
16. On the facts of this case, this Court deems it fit to consider a decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer reported in 2003 (8) SCC 731, wherein, the Supreme Court has explained the terms, Negligence Composite Negligence and Contributory Negligence. In the reported case, as per the version of the claim, the deceased was on his bicycle and due to rash and negligent driving of a bus, dashing against him, the cyclist sustained grievous injuries and died. As regards manner of accident, the Corporation took a stand that the deceased had suddenly come from the left side of the bus at a very high speed and instead of taking the left turn, took the right turn in contravention of the traffic regulations. When the driver saw the cyclist coming from the wrong side, he immediately applied the brakes and halted the bus. But the cyclist dashed against the front side of the bus and sustained injuries. The claimants examined a witness on their behalf. The driver has been examined on behalf of the Transport Corporation and according to him, he was driving the vehicle at a very slow speed and that the deceased came from the side of Chembur Station in the opposite direction and when he saw him, at a distance of 30 ft., he immediately applied the brakes and haulted the bus. But the cyclist dashed against the front side of the bus. The Tribunal rejected the case of the Corporation and quantified the compensation. The High Court sustained the award. While examining the correctness of the award, at Paragraph 6, the Supreme Court explained, as to what act amounts to negligence and that the same is extracted hereunder: