Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.77 seconds)National Insurance Company, Jabalpur vs Thaglu Singh And Ors. on 3 March, 1994
15. This argument of learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thaglu Singh 1995 ACJ 248 (MP). In this claim case itself it has not been mentioned by the appellants that Ravi Shankar had left behind any legal representatives. Therefore, respondent No. 4 cannot raise this argument by way of defence that respondent No. 4 is not liable. This argument can only be considered at the time of passing of the final award. That apart, this technical mistake can be corrected by the appellants during the course of trial. In these appeals, the appellants cannot deny their liabilities.
Section 92A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr vs Smt. Vatschala Uttam More on 17 July, 1991
16. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 that according to the allegations made in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which were to the effect that the jeep was stationary when the truck dashed against it, therefore, it was not in use within the meaning of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This question has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More 1991 ACJ 777 (SC). It has been said in that case that the words 'use of a motor vehicle' used in Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 should be given wider connotation and would cover an accident which occurs both when a vehicle is in motion or even when it is stationary. It was held that the use of vehicle does not cease as such when it has been rendered immobile on account of breakdown or mechanical defect or an accident. In the case before the Supreme Court, there was a collision between a truck and petrol tanker and the tanker turned turtle and after about 472 hours of the accident, the tanker exploded and caught fire causing injuries to and death of several persons. Even in such a case, it was held by the Supreme Court that the petrol tanker was in use even if it had turned turtle and was lying on the end of road for about 472 hours when it exploded. It was further held that the petrol tanker which was a motor vehicle when it collided with the truck, did not cease to be a motor vehicle after collision and the claimant was entitled to compensation. The case in hand, on the other hand, shows that the jeep was brought to almost standstill for giving way to truck. This case is much more stronger because the jeep in question was not rendered immobile but was stopped with the engine running to give way to the truck. The language of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is similar to Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and, therefore, there is no reason for taking another view of the matter. This argument of the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 is not acceptable.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
1