Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 175 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Union Carbide Corporation Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 3 October, 1991
8. On the pleadings of the parties it is evidently clear that it is not a case where the claim is made only on the basis of rash and negligent act of the driver of the passenger bus nor is a case of making a claim only on the basis of tortious act of railway administration, but the claim for compensation is based on composite negligence of the drivers of the passenger bus and railway train, therefore, in such a situation, the Tribunal constituted under Section 110(1) of the Act of 1939 corresponding to Section 165(1) of the Act to adjudicate the claim for compensation filed against persons besides the driver, owner and insurer of the offending motor vehicle involved in the accident would be maintainable. Exactly, the similar question was considered by a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corporation v. Union of India 1987 ACJ 734 (Gujarat).
Union Of India vs Smt. Sushila Devi And Others on 21 July, 1989
We are supported by a Full Bench decision of our own Court on the above proposition in Union of India v. Sushila Devi 1990 ACJ 1 (Allahabad).
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Dr. Sewak Ram And Ors. on 26 March, 1992
In this connection, it may be observed that in cases where it is found by the Tribunal that the accident was caused only due to negligence of the outside agency and not by the driver of the motor vehicle, in that case alone the Tribunal shall cease to have any jurisdiction to grant any relief to the claimant. Where the claim is preferred only against an outside agency then too, the claim petition would not be maintainable. But in the present case, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter on the basis that the accident occurred due to fall of crossbar of the Railways at the railway crossing but without going into the question about the negligence of the motor cycle driver. It was necessary for the Tribunal to have tried all the issues together including the issue relating to negligence of the parties. After the trial, if it was found that there was negligence on the part of the outside agency alone, then the prayer for the award of compensation could be turned down. But where it is found to be a case of contributory negligence or composite negligence or even a slight negligence on the part of the motor cycle driver, the claim petition would be maintainable before the Claims Tribunal.