Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Sabra & Anr on 18 September, 2017
48. The plain reading of Section 128 of M.V. Act, would show that it
casts a duty on driver of two wheeled motor vehicle not to carry more than
one person in addition to himself/herself on such vehicle. Rule 123 of Road
Safety Rules is also relevant in this regard but at the same time, it is
relevant to note that these provisions are made as safety measures for
driver and pillion rider and breach thereof may amount to 'negligence' but
such negligence will not ipsofacto amount to 'contributory negligence' on
Master Himanshu Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 32
MACP No. 514/19; FIR No. 61/19.; PS. Narela DOD: 04.05.2023
the part of pillion rider or 'composite negligence' on the part of driver of the
motorcycle, unless such negligence was partly the immediate cause of the
accident. In other words, if the damage in the accident has not been
caused partly on account of violation of Section 128 of M.V. Act by rider of
the motorcycle, the rider is not guilty of contributory negligence. There is
another aspect of the matter. The driving of four persons on the motorcycle,
may constitute violation of traffic rules but it does not ipsofacto establishes
that motorcycle was being driven rashly or negligently or that it was out of
the control of its driver. It is evident that offending vehicle had come from
behind and hit against the motorcycle. While taking this view, I am fortified
by the judgments rendered in cases titled as "Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Sabra & Ors", MAC APP.
Sushma Devi And Ors vs Vikram Singh And Ors on 13 November, 2018
107/2017, decided
on 18.09.17 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, "Devi Singh Vs. Vikram
Singh & Ors", 2008(1) Transport And Accidents Cases (T.A.C.)
Bimla Devi And Another vs Surjeet Singh And Others on 5 March, 2009
),
"Bimla Devi Vs. Surjeet Singh & Ors.", 2018 ACJ 945 (P & H), "Bharma
Kallappa Murashetti & Ors. Vs. Karamjeet Kaur & Anr." 2017 ACJ 1758
(Karnt.).
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sangeeta Devi & Ors on 22 February, 2016
In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, I award
compensation of Rs. 17,12,000/ (including interim award amount, if
any) alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in favour of petitioner and against
the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.08.2019 till the
date of its realization (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011
decided on 22.02.2016). Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2021
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity
(Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of
Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs.
Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and
form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme
as directed in the said order.