Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (2.44 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kanshi Ram And Ors. on 17 February, 2004
10. A similar question fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge
of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Kanshi Ram
& Ors. 2006 ACJ 492. In the said case, Sohan Lal who was working as a
driver with the transport company (owner of the truck) was murdered by
the second driver of the truck and goods loaded in the truck were stolen.
The learned Single Judge while relying on Rita Devi held that no
evidence was led by the Appellant Insurance Company to suggest that the
dominant purport of Jeet Singh (the second driver) was to kill Sohal Lal
and not to commit theft. The Appeal preferred by the Appellant United
India Insurance Company Limited in that case was thus dismissed.
Smt.Rita Devi & Ors vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr on 27 April, 2000
4. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal while relying on Rita
Devi & Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. 2000 (5)
SCC 113 held that this accident had arisen out of use of a motor vehicle.
Since it was a Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (the Act), the Claims Tribunal accepted the deceased's income as
`40,000/-, deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses and
applied the multiplier of 18 as given in the second Schedule to compute
the loss of dependency. The Claims Tribunal awarded overall
compensation of `5,10,000/-.
Section 167 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Seth Loonkaran Sethiya And Ors. vs Mr. Ivan E. John And Ors. on 20 October, 1976
6. Mr. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the Appellant places reliance on
the report of House of Lords in AXN & Ors. v. John Worboys (1)
Inceptum Insurance Company Limited (2012) EWHC 1730 (QB) decided
on 25.06.2012 where a taxi driver used to commit rape and rob unwary
female passengers who hired the taxi. A number of Claim Petitions were
filed against the insurer of the taxi on the ground that bodily injuries were
suffered by the victims arising out of use of vehicle on a road. The House
of Lords held that the essential character of the journey in question was
the use of the vehicle for a criminal purpose and held that the bodily
injuries were not suffered by the Claimants "arising out of the use of the
vehicle on a road or other public place within the meaning of RTA 1988,
Section 145 (3)(a)." The judgment cited does not support the Appellant's
case. Moreover, the judgment would not be relevant in view of the
authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Rita Devi.
1