Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.21 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 1A in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Megjibhai Khimji Vira And Anr. vs Chaturbhai Taljabhai And Ors. on 14 February, 1977
17. Learned single Judge, who decided the Misc. Appeal No. 161 of 1974 (supra), has placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court, reported in 1977 Acc CJ 253 : (AIR 1977 Guj 195) (Megjibhai v. Chaturbhai). In this decision their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court felt that the provisions contained in Section 110-A override the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act. But the learned Judges did not consider as to whether the right to claim compensation flows from the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or from the Fatal Accidents Act. Apparently, the matter is now settled by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court that no new right has been created under the Motor Vehicles Act. It appears that in this decision the question as to whether the term 'legal representatives' creates a class of heirs or it only enables one who in law could represent the estate of the deceased also was not considered. In our opinion, therefore, in view of the question about the right having been settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, this decision of the Gujarat High Court with respect cannot be followed.
Mohammed Habibullah And Anr. vs K. Seethammal on 4 July, 1966
The other decision on which reliance was placed is the decision reported in 1966 Acc CJ 349: AIR 1967 Mad 123, (Mohammad Habibullah v. K. Seethammal). In this decision it was also felt that as the Motor Vehicles Act is a self-contained Code and the sister being the legal representative of the deceased was entitled to claim compensation. In this decision also their Lordships did not consider under what law the sister could claim to represent the estate of the deceased and in cases of compensation how the right to claim compensation arose. It appears that this aspect of the matter was not considered as it was only observed:
Section 110A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Kasturilal Gopaldas And Anr. vs Prabhakar Martand Patki And Anr. on 26 November, 1968
2. This appeal was heard by a learned single Judge. The learned single Judge felt that the consistent view of this Court as laid down in Kasturilal v. Prabhakar (1970 Acc CJ 1): (AIR 1971 Madh Pra 145) and Suman v. The General Manager, M. P. S. R. T Corporation (1970 Acc CJ 280) is that the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 110A does not confer a new right but only provides an expeditious remedy and, therefore, except the persons entitled to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act no others, even if they fall within the ambit of the term legal representatives' can claim compensation. The learned Judge, therefore, also felt that the view taken by Hon'ble Shri Justice R. K. Vijaivargiya in Misc.