Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Rajastha State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Ogam And Ors. on 16 December, 1991
Corporation v. Ogam, 1992 ACJ 843 (Rajasthan), the Division Bench of this Court has also held that Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 92-A of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 have retrospective effect and would be applicable even to the accident that took place before the aforesaid provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act came into force. There is nothing in Section 140 or 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to suggest the exclusion of Section 140 to pending cases. The limit of compensation on principle of no fault in the case of death has since been enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- by means of amending Act No. 54 of 1994 which has been enforced with effect from 14.11.1994.
Lakshminarayan Guin & Ors vs Niranjan Modak on 3 December, 1984
In Lakshmi Narayan Guin v. Niranjan Modak AIR 1985 SC 111, it has been held by the Apex Court that "that a change in the law during the pendency of an appeal has to be taken into account and would govern the rights of the parties". In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1994 (Act No. 54 of 1994) shall apply to all claims pending before the Tribunal or appellate court as also the cause of action subsisting on 14.11.1994 notwithstanding that the accident giving rise to the claim had taken place before coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, under the no fault law clause, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- less amount already awarded and paid in this behalf, and to this extent, the award of the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified. A compensation under no fault law makes the owner of the vehicle liable for compensation for death even when the accident is not due to the fault of the owner or the driver of the vehicle or even the accident had taken place due to the fault of the victim.
Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 November, 1971
In the case of Mahadeo Han Lokre v. State of Maharashtra 1972 ACJ 185 (SC), the Apex Court has held that if a person suddenly crosses the road, the driver of the vehicle, however slow he may be driving, may not be in a position to save the accident and, therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the driver was negligent. In my opinion, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely covers the instant case. Therefore, the driver, respondent No. 2, cannot be held to be negligent in the accident in question.
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000
Section 110A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
1