Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)Section 110F in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Rajpal Singh vs The Union Of India And Ors. on 20 February, 1985
In fact, the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajpal Singh v. Union of India, , went a little ahead and held that the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act can entertain an application for compensation in respect of third parties also. In that case, the claim petition was filed against the railway authorities. The facts in that case reveal that the claimant along with one Vasdev Bajaj on 23-6-1979 was returned from Panchkula to Chandigarh in a car driven by him, at about 1-30 a.m. When he was crossing gate No. 121 on Panchkula-Zirakpur Road, a railway train struck against his car. Their Lordships of the Punjab and Haryana High Court having surveyed the entire case, but have taken the view that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can entertain the claim for compensation not only against the owner, driver and insurer, but also on the third parties (i.e.,) Railway authorities in that case.
Union Of India vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 22 October, 1997
8. The matter was set at rest by the Apex Court in Union of India v. United India Insurance Company Limited, . In this case, one of the questions that arose for consideration was whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has got jurisdiction under Section 110(1) of the Old Act, (corresponding to Sections 165(1) and 168(1) of 1988 Act), to adjudicate the claims against the railway administration, when a motor vehicle is hit by a train at level crossing, in addition to insurer, owner and driver. The issue was answered in favour of the claimants. In paragraph Nos. 44 and 45 of the judgment, their Lordships observed that words 'asking out of the use of the vehicle' occurring in Section 110(1) is not in any manner controlled by Section 110-B, and those words have to be given a wider meaning. At paragraph 46, their Lordships further held that "compensation is maintainable before the Tribunal against other persons or agencies which are held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors, and if arising out of use of the use of the motor vehicle. We hold that the Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that an award could be passed against the Railways if its negligence in relation to the same accident was also proved."