Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.32 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
U.P. State Road Transport Corpn vs Krishna Bala & Ors on 13 July, 2006
This was reiterated in T.N.
State Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and U.P. SRTC v.
Krishna Bala.”
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Charlie And Anr on 29 March, 2005
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie this Court
noticed that in respect of claims under Section 166 of the MV
Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said
multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years
(commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest
multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60
to 70 years (normal retiring age).
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... vs S. Rajapriya And Two Others on 20 April, 2005
This was reiterated in T.N.
State Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and U.P. SRTC v.
Krishna Bala.”
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Pathak And Ors on 10 July, 2007
In the course of hearing few
decisions of this Court, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors[1]., Sarla
Dixit (Smt.) and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors[2]., U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and Ors. V. Trilok Chandra and Ors.[3], Kaushnuma
Begum (Smt.) and Ors. V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.[4],
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan &
Ors.[5], Jyoti Kaul & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr.[6], Abati Bezbaruah
v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr.[7], New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors.[8], were cited.
The attention of the Bench was also invited to Sections 163A and 166 of
the 1988 Act. The Bench was of the opinion that the question, whether
the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule should be taken to be
guide for calculation of amount of compensation payable in a case
falling under Section 166 of the 1988 Act needed to be decided by a
larger Bench. The reasons for referring the above issue to the larger
Bench indicated in the referral order dated 23.07.2009 read as under:
Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977
2. We are concerned with the above reference. Before we
refer to the provisions contained in Sections 163A and 166 of the 1988
Act, it is of some relevance to notice the background in which the
Parliament considered it necessary to bring in the provisions of no
fault liability on the statute. It so happened that in Minu B. Mehta and
Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr.[9] , a three-Judge Bench of
this Court while considering the question whether the fact of injury
resulting from the accident involving the use of a vehicle on the public
road is the basis of a liability and that it is not necessary to prove
any negligence on the part of the driver, held that the liability of the
owner of the car to compensate the victim in a car accident due to the
negligent driving of his servant is based on the law of tort and before
the master could be made liable it is necessary to prove that the
servant was acting during the course of his employment and that he was
negligent. This Court held that the concept of owner’s liability
without any negligence is opposed to the basic principles of law. The
mere fact that a person died or a party received an injury arising out
of the use of a vehicle in a public place cannot justify fastening
liability on the owner.
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another on 11 May, 1987
In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v.
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another[10], a two-Judge Bench held that the
compensation awardable under Section 92-A was without proof of any
negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle or any other person
which was clearly a departure from the usual common law principle that
a claimant should establish negligence on the part of the owner or
driver of the motor vehicle before claiming any compensation for the
death or permanent disablement caused on account of a motor vehicle
accident. Certain observations made in Minu B. Mehta9 were held to be
obiter in Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai10 .