Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14
"the injured was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a Private Car.
The High Court held that the insured was not liable since the Claimant
was only passenger. The Insurance Policy was extracted by the Supreme
Court and we find that it is almost identical to the Policy in the case
before us. The Supreme Court held in Amritlal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi
Thapar (supra) as follows at pp 46 & 47 of MLJ.
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 1977
"15.In Pushpahai Purshottam Udesh and Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning &
Pressing Co. (P) IM and Anr. [1977]3SCR372 the insurance company
had raised the contention that the scope of statutory insurance
under Section 95(1)(a) read with 95 (1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 does not cover the injury suffered by a passenger and, since there
was a limited liability under the insurance policy, the risk of the
insurance company would be limited to the extent it was specifically
covered. Alter referring to the English Road Traffic Act, 1960, and
Halsbury's Laws of England. (Third Edition) this Court came to the
conclusion that Section 95 of the 1939 Act required that the policy of
insurance must be a policy insuring the insured against any liability
incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injury to a third party and
rejected the contention that the words "third party" were wide enough to
cover all persons except the insured and the insurer. This Court held as
under: (vide para 20) Therefore it is not required that a policy of
insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for
hire or reward. As under Section 95 the risk to a passenger in a vehicle
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
27
who is not carried for hire or reward is not required to be insured the
plea of the counsel for the insurance company will have to be accepted
and the insurance company held not liable under the requirements of
the Motor Vehicles Act.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Section 29 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Shantaben Widow Of Deceased Kantibhai ... vs Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Patel And 2 Ors. on 28 December, 2006
7.The Avoidance Clause in the policy in this case makes all the
difference and the direction of the High Court to the Appellant,
insurance company to make payment of the full amount of compensation
to the claimants and to recover its dues from the owner of the vehicle is
directly in accordance with that Clause. In our view, the submission of
Mr. Calla is well founded. The Appellant in this case can derive no
benefit from the decision in C.M. Jaya. 2002 ACJ 271 (SC).
5.2012 ACJ 2715 [Shantaben and others vs. Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai
Patel and others:-
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
19.In the instant case, as per Ex. A.62- salary certificate, the gross
salary of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 16,221/- p.m. and
his net. salary was Rs. 9,405/- p.m. Keeping in view, the promotional
chances of the deceased, who was aged 49 years on the date of his death,
30% of the actual salary can be added to his income towards future
prospects which comes to Rs. 9,406/- + Rs. 2822/- = Rs. 12,228/-, as per
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma and Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr. 2009 (2) L.S. 29 (S.C.). Therefore, the
annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 12,228/- x 12 = Rs.
1/46,736/-. From this 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal living
expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs. 48,912/- and the remaining
2/3rd amount i.e. Rs. 97,824/- shall be taken as contribution to the
family. The multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 13. To
arrive at the loss of dependency, the above amount has to be capitalised
with 13, which comes to Rs. 97,824/- x 13 = Rs. 12,71,712/-. This apart,
the first claimant, who is the widow of the deceased is entitled for an
amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are
entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/-
towards funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs. 12,91,712/-.