Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (2.56 seconds)The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
Megjibhai Khimji Vira And Anr. vs Chaturbhai Taljabhai And Ors. on 14 February, 1977
We
feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance
with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having
regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal
representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due
to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of
compensation and that is provided by S.110-A to 110-F of the Act.
These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of
torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor
Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which
appears to it to be just as provided in S.110-B of the Act to
specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid.
The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment
as required by S.110B of the Act amongst the legal representatives
for whose benefit an application may be filed under S.110-A of the
Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law.
We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and
brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and
they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the
bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there
is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the
provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already
held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in
the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles
accidents. We express our approval on the decision in Megjibhai
Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai (AIR 1977 Guj 195) (supra) and
hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle
accident is entitled to maintain a petition under S.110-A of the Act
if he is a legal representative of the deceased.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor, Newphew Of Late ... on 8 February, 2005
A
second decision of this Court reported in the case of New
India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor (supra) is
also relied by the Advocate of the claimant and on that basis,
contention raised by Advocate of Insurance Company has been rejected
by Claims Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Court has examined
this issue while considering provisions of Hindu Succession Act,
1956 as discussed in Paragraphs 4 and 5 which are quoted as under :-
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another on 11 May, 1987
This decision is approved
by the Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,
Ahmedabad v Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another (AIR 1987 SC 1690).
In paragraph 9, the Apex Court said :
Section 1A in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
A
contention was raised by learned Advocate, Ms. Megha Jani that
deceased was unmarried. Therefore, 1/3rd amount is to be
considered as dependency and 2/3rd amount is to be
deducted for personal expenses and relying upon the Apex Court's
decision in case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% amount is
to be deducted from income.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors on 1 March, 2006
I
have considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Ms. Jani.
Such submissions cannot be accepted because deceased was aged 35
years which means that deceased was of a marriageable age.
Therefore, even in near future he must have acquired a family as per
decision of Apex Court in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar V.
Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC
1255. Relevant paragraphs are quoted as under :-