Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.38 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... vs Ram Sunder Dubey And Ors. on 17 December, 1981
12. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Sunder Dubey (supra) observed in para 15 thus:
Section 95 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gonti Eliza David And Ors. on 26 October, 1983
14. A Division Bench of Bombay High Court in, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gonti Eliza David (supra) after referring to Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act of 1939 observed in paras 12 and 13 thus:
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jadavji Keshavji Modi & Ors on 29 September, 1981
"13. The one way to resolve the ambiguity would be, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in. Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi, AIR 1981 SC 2059 : 1981 ACJ 507 (SC), to apply the touch stone that the purpose of law is to alleviate, not augment the sufferings of the people. Undoubtedly, an aggrieved employee is entitled under Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act to exercise his option regarding the forums which he can approach to prefer his claim for compensation. The factors to be taken into consideration in deciding his claim under the two Acts would be different -- a Tribunal would apply the principles of strict liability circumscribed by the Workmen's Compensation Act while, if the aggrieved choses to move the Motor Vehicles Tribunal, it would go by the principles of tort in determining his case. The quantum of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is quantified in the Schedule itself. But the quantum of damages under common law of Tort is subject to determination by the Tribunal on the basis of well settled principles. The Workmen's Compensation Act offers no leeway in the matter of quantification of damages; the process becomes mechanical once the pay packer of the claiment is known. The proof of damages in a common law action before a Tribunal which is generally presided over by a senior Judicial Officer may throw open a number of issues the burden of proving which would lie on the claimant. In this option of forum shopping-if the workman has chosen to undertake the responsibility of discharging the onerous burden imposed upon him by Tort law, it follows that he should get the
benefit of the expression ''including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923" occurring in clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act which implies that insurer is liable for common law damages also and not only liabilities arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act."
Suresh Chandra vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 9 November, 1995
3. Section 167 of the Act, corresponding to Section 110-AA of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act of 1939') gives an option to the person entitled to claim compensation to choose and claim compensation either under Chapter XII of the Act, corresponding to Chapter IV of the Act of 1939, or under the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (W.C.Act). What is prohibited is that the person entitled to claim compensation cannot claim the compensation under both the Acts. It is well settled that if the person entitled elects to claim compensation against a tort feaser under Chapter XII of the Act, he takes the burden upon himself to establish the negligence of the owner of the vehicle. On establishment of negligence, the Tribunal has to determine compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the death or injury caused to a workman in motor accident by the use of motor vehicle wherein norms of W.C. Act in computing the compensation cannot be applied and such claimant would be entitled for 'just' compensation under common law. See, Suresh Chandra v. State of U.P., (1995) 6 SCC 623, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudha Devi.