Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.48 seconds)
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Abdul Majeed on 12 December, 1989 cites

Rajkumar vs Mahendra Singh And Ors. on 12 July, 1984

In this connection Mr. Sisodia has invited my attention to Rajkumar v. Mahendra Singh, 1985 ACJ 103(MP). In this case the Division Bench of M.P. High Court has interpreted the provisions of Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the Tribunal is only entitled to grant compensation in respect of (i) death, (ii) bodily injury and (iii) damage to property. As such loss of the business cannot be compensated, therefore, this claim cannot be entertained, with great respect, I do not agree with the view taken by the M.P. High Court. It may not be lost sight of that legislature in its wisdom has thought it proper to draft Section 110 for purpose of giving benefit to the victims of the motor accidents. It will not be proper to circumscribe the scope of Section 110 by narrow interpretation. It is a social legislation for the benefit of the public at large and it should be interpreted in a more wider and comprehensive manner so as to give relief to the victims and not to debar them. The expression damage to property is of very wide amplitude. Though the future earning cannot be said to be ascertained sum, but it is a property in future which the owner of the damaged vehicle would have earned out of this truck, if this vehicle has not been damaged. Thus his recurring income has been lost on account of this damage and how can this be deprived to owner of vehicle. In this connection, reference may be made to Section 110-F, Motor Vehicles Act which has barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, meaning thereby that all the claims arising out of the motor accidents should be disposed of by the Tribunal only. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been barred. It would mean that part of the claim is to be raised before Tribunal and for remaining the Incumbent has to take recourse to the Civil Courts, then this will give rise to multiplity of the proceedings. Thus, the scope of Section 110 is wide enought to include the future earning as a damage to the future property of the claimant."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

General Manager, Kerala State Road ... vs K.P. Saradamma on 3 July, 1987

In support of the above submission, the learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in RAJKUMAR v. MAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS., 1985 ACJ 103. and of the Kerala High Court in GENERAL MANAGER, KSRTC v. K.P. SARADAMMA, . In both these decisions, the above question has been considered. The view taken is that when the Section expressly confers power on the Tribunal to award compensation only in respect of damages to property, in the guise of Interpretation, the jurisdiction cannot be enlarged so as to include even the loss of income arising out of or as a result of damage to property. The relevant portion of the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reads:-
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 22 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1