Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 110A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Section 2 in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
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.
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.
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.