Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.85 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajni Devi & Ors on 22 April, 2008
In our considered opinion, the ratio of the decision in
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi (supra) is clearly
applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present
case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in
MAC. APP.164/2012 Page 3 of 14
question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real
owner. The deceased cannot be held to be an employee of
the owner of the motorbike although he was authorized to
drive the said vehicle by its owner and, therefore, he would
step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have
already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore.
A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly
clear that persons like the deceased in the present case
would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle."
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001
16. At the instant juncture, it is also necessary to reiterate a
conclusion already drawn above, namely, that Section 163A
of the Act has an overriding effect on all other provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Stated in other words, none of
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which is in conflict
with Section 163A of the Act will negate the mandate
contained therein (in Section 163A of the Act). Therefore, no
matter what, Section 163A of the Act shall stand on its own,
without being diluted by any provision. Furthermore, in the
course of our determination including the inferences and
conclusions drawn by us from the judgment of this Court in
Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Hansrajbhai v.
Kodala, (2001) 5 SCC 175, as also, the statutory provisions
dealt with by this Court in its aforesaid determination, we
are of the view, that there is no basis for inferring that
Section 163A of the Act is founded under the "no-fault"
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Sinitha & Ors on 23 November, 2011
8. Now I turn to the question whether the owner was liable to pay any
compensation. Admittedly, the Claimants have not filed any Appeal
against the impugned judgment. Since the Insurance Company was made
liable to pay the compensation of `1,00,000/- meant for the driver-cum-
owner under the personal accident cover, I would now like to deal with
the question whether the owner is liable to pay any compensation in the
circumstances in which the accident has taken place. As stated
hereinabove, it is the case of the Claimants themselves that the deceased
lost control of the two-wheeler while he was driving the same. It is not
the Claimants' case that any mechanical defect in the two-wheeler was
the cause of the accident. Thus, it is evident that the accident took place
because of the deceased's own wrongful act, neglect or default. The case
is covered by report of the Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Sinitha & Ors., 2011 (13) SCALE 84 where the
Supreme Court drew distinction between award of compensation on the
basis of „liability without fault‟ under Section 140 of the Act and payment
of compensation without proof of negligence under Section 163-A of the
Act. The Supreme Court held that while awarding compensation under
Section 140 of the Act, the fact whether the accident took place because
of the wrongful act, neglect or default of the victim is not a defence,
whereas this would be valid defence under Section 163-A of the Act
although the victim need not prove that the accident was caused because
of the wrongful act, neglect or default of the driver of the vehicle
involved in the accident. In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that
where the victim/deceased himself is responsible for the accident, then
MAC. APP.164/2012 Page 7 of 14
he/his legal representatives cannot claim compensation under Section
163-A of the Act. Paras 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the report are extracted
hereunder for reference:
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sadanand Mukhi & Ors on 18 December, 2008
In support of the said
contention, the counsel relied on the decision of this Court
in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi (2008) 5 SCC
736 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi,
(2009) 2 SCC 417.
Ningamma & Anr vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 13 May, 2009
In Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009)
13 SCC 710, the Supreme Court relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rajni Devi & Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 736 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
1