Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.40 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977
In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Minu B. Mehta's case 1977 ACJ 118 (SC) and the conflict between it and the judgment given in Kaushnuma Begum's case , it is not very clear whether the rule of strict liability as propounded in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, is to be applied in every case or not. Even assuming that the rule of strict liability is applicable in the case, there are exceptions to the rule. One of the exceptions is the consent of the plaintiff, i.e., volenti non fit injuria. In this case the driver himself is the deceased. As stated above, there is nothing on record to show that he had ever objected to driving the truck or raised any objection/question with regard to the condition of tyres or the maintenance of the truck. He had consented to drive the truck without any objection. Therefore, the rule of strict liability would not be applicable even in this case. The appeal of the State, therefore, has to be allowed and the claim petition filed by the claimants has to be rejected.
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Minu B. Mehta's case 1977 ACJ 118 (SC) and the conflict between it and the judgment given in Kaushnuma Begum's case , it is not very clear whether the rule of strict liability as propounded in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, is to be applied in every case or not. Even assuming that the rule of strict liability is applicable in the case, there are exceptions to the rule. One of the exceptions is the consent of the plaintiff, i.e., volenti non fit injuria. In this case the driver himself is the deceased. As stated above, there is nothing on record to show that he had ever objected to driving the truck or raised any objection/question with regard to the condition of tyres or the maintenance of the truck. He had consented to drive the truck without any objection. Therefore, the rule of strict liability would not be applicable even in this case. The appeal of the State, therefore, has to be allowed and the claim petition filed by the claimants has to be rejected.
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another on 11 May, 1987
Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), have been considered by this Court in Sukhwant Kaur v. Sher Singh 2005 (1) SLJ 600. In this case, it was held as under:
State Of M.P. And Anr. vs Smt. Kishori Paragniha And Ors. on 24 June, 1997
(5) From the evidence it is established that the accident occurred due to breakage of arm bolt. When the accident occurred due to mechanical defect the owner of the vehicle has to prove that he had taken all necessary precautions and kept the vehicle in a roadworthy condition and that the defect occurred in spite of reasonable care and caution taken by the owner. In order to sustain a plea that the accident was due to the mechanical defect the owner must raise a plea that the defect was latent and not discoverable by the man of reasonable care. The burden of proving that the accident was due to mechanical defect is on the owner and it is his duty that he had taken all reasonable care like a prudent man and despite such care the defect remained hidden and, therefore, the accident was inevitable so as to absolve him from the liability. [See: Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan 1977 ACJ 118 (SC); Baby v. Sona Khan and a recent decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kishori Paragniha . In view of the settled position of law in case of accident occurring due to mechanical defect and in the absence of any evidence in support of the defence raised by the owner of the vehicle, we are of the view that the accident occurred due to the breakage of the arm bolt as a result of which the deceased lost control of the vehicle which turned turtle.
State Of Haryana Etc vs Krishan Lal Sehgal & Ors. Etc on 3 September, 1997
She has also cited Haryana State v. Krishan Kumar , in which the accident occurred due to breaking of the leaf spring (kamani) of the truck.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Kaliya Pillai on 30 October, 2002
7. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that the award of Tribunal is liable to be set aside. According to him the claimants had failed to prove any negligence on the part of the State of H.P. in maintaining the vehicle. He further submits that the driver had never made any complaint with regard to the condition of the vehicle. He himself had taken the vehicle voluntarily in whatever condition it was given to him without any demur. He further submits that the vehicle had been inspected on 17.6.1992 and, therefore, the allegation that the vehicle was not being maintained properly is not borne out from the record. He has also relied upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pandurangan and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaliya Pillai . In my opinion the judgments may not be strictly applicable to the facts of the present case. What has been held in these cases is that no amount can be awarded to a tort-feasor. In case driver himself is negligent then obviously nothing can be awarded.
Ramji Porte And Ors. vs Premabai Patel And Ors. on 9 January, 1998
12. The second authority which is relevant is Ramji Porte v. Premabai Patel . In this case a 15 years old truck was being driven by the driver. It also stood proved on record that driver had been complaining about the condition of the vehicle. The court held that it has been proved that due to the fact that truck was heavily loaded and condition of the truck was not roadworthy, the tyre got punctured and thereafter arm bolt was broken as a result of which the driver lost control of the vehicle. The court held as follows: