Latest Update

Passenger on tractor - Insurance Company not liable

Motor Vehicles Act, 1986, S. 166 - Appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods -  Neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor -  Appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person namely the driver -  Insurance Company was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor.

(2018)2 SCeJ 1411 / SUPREME COURT e@journal / 5 September, 2018

 plr - supreme court e@journal

4/5 updates a week of the latest Supreme Court Judgements (Full Text with headnotes) delivered to your email and your mobile. Take our 1 month trial pack.

Rs. 1000/- per annum

WhatsApp / Email / App

 

Call 9463598502

 

 

https://www.plronline.in/subscribe/

  


Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,  Section 166 - Injured - Cleaner in a lorry – Age 25 years  - 25% partial but permanent disability in the whole body – factors taken into consideration for increasing compensation - Claimant was a young unmarried boy of 25 years at the time of accident and did not suffer with any kind of ailment; Second, the appellant had sustained fracture of both pelvic bones with rapture of urethra and abdomen injuries for which he underwent four operations and suffered partial but permanent disability in his body which reduced his movement capacity to a larger extent; Third, the appellant due to partial but permanent disability  also  lost  his  job; Fourth,  he  spent  a substantial sum for his medical treatment; and lastly, since the appellant is not still able to move freely due to disabilities suffered by him, he is entitled to be suitably compensated by awarding him monetary compensation – Compensation increased from Rs. Rs.3,43,000/­ to Rs. 8,43,000/­.

(2018)2 SCeJ 1385 / 31 August, 2018


 

 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,  Section 166 - Deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question -  Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased -  No other vehicle was involved in the accident -  Deceased himself was responsible for the accident -  The deceased being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act -  A Claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same -  Therefore, the respondents being the LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act - High Court was not justified in directing the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal -  Since the indemnification extended to personal accident of the deceased is limited to Rs. 2,00,000/- under the contract of insurance, the respondents are entitled for the said amount towards compensation with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of the Claim Petition. 

(2018)2 SCeJ 1388

31 August, 2018.

 


(2018)2 SCeJ 1338 / 14th August, 2018.

 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, Section 149  - Driving Licence – Fake  - Suffice it to observe that it is well established that if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake and still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, then the insurer would stand absolved -  However, the mere fact that the driving licence is fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer - Indubitably, the counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the driving licence was found to be fake, but that concession by itself was not sufficient to absolve the insurer. Held, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has bothered to analyse the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties on the crucial matter. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to relegate the parties before the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeal filed by the appellant (owner) only on the question of liability of the owner or of the insurer  to pay the compensation amount. That in the oral evidence, the owner had stated that he had seen the photocopy of the driving licence of S and was also satisfied about his driving skills, before employing him as the driver for driving the vehicle. The Tribunal made no attempt to analyse the pleadings and evidence on record to ascertain whether the appellant (owner) was aware of the fake driving licence possessed by the driver. The Tribunal merely adverted to the investigation and verification report and found that the stated driving licence was invalid. The High Court also made no attempt to enquire into the relevant aspect, as has been consistently expounded by this Court and restated in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company, (2013)10 SCC 217 and Premkumari and Ors. Vs. Prahlad Dev and Ors., (2008)3 SCC 193. Matter remanded. 

DOWNLOAD JUDGEMENT


  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – “brazenly false case to stage manage a fake involvement of the insured’s vehicle” - No post-mortem was conducted - The circumstance that no postmortem was conducted is an extremely significant aspect of the case which in our view has justifiably weighed with the High Court -  Accident took place on 12 January 1995, a complaint was lodged only on 15 February 1995 -  Evidence of the driver, that while at one stage he had stated that the deceased was brought dead, at another place he stated that he was referred to the government hospital for further treatment - Moreover, the High Court found that if there were three passengers in the tractor, all of whom had known that driver had by his negligent act run over R.K., the most natural conduct would have been to lodge a complaint, the person who died was the brother of the owner of the tractor, hence, the fact that a complaint was  not lodged for nearly one month is a significant omission in the case -  No hospital records to indicate, from the nature of the injuries, that death had occurred due to an accident of the nature alleged - The deceased was conducting a transport business with his brother and was an income tax assessee - The fact that proper medical records were not available has, in this background, weighed with the High Court - Claim dismissed. (S.C.)(2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 - 100% permanent disability - Since the injured was 65 years of age at the time of accident and was hale and healthy before the accident, therefore, future loss of income on account of 100% permanent disability can be assessed for a period of five years keeping in view the health of the injured before the accident and age expectancy in India - Special diet assessed at Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs.3000/- per month would suffice to meet the requirement of special diet to the injured/claimant - Since the factum of salary has come to fore in the statement of witness itself, therefore, the salary to the tune of Rs.3000/- ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal towards salary of the attendant - Hidden medical expenses Rs.1,09,000/-, Transportation Rs.20,000/- - Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- - Total amount awarded Rs.9,84,000/-. (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Accident - Delay of 16 days in recording the F.I.R. - The factum of delay in reporting the accident to the police has been explained by the respondent-claimant, who has stated that talks of compromise were going on - Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in reporting the matter to the police is immaterial, particularly when the statement of claimant regarding the manner in which the accident took place, is unrebutted. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Accident – Mistake with respect to the registration number - Has not summoned the record from hospital where he was treated – As would record the history and the name of the person accompanying the injured and that would have been a clincher - The claimants had purposely held back that evidence – FIR – A new person has been introduced – Claim application dismissed – Order upheld. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 - Accident - Proof of - Story put-forward by the claimant is bared by the fact that the post-mortem report indicated that there was massive head injury - If the deceased had fallen on account of high velocity of air, the injury would not have been so massive - According to the claimant the bus driver had fled from the spot whereas the witness had claimed that the driver stopped the bus and the police reached the spot whereas the police did not find either the bus or the driver on the spot - It appears that the true version has been kept away from the Tribunal and a concocted story was made up and the FIR was lodged to claim compensation. (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Accident – Proof of – Nature of injury itself shows that it was a serious injury suffered but on record, there is no proof that on the date of accident, the appellant was hospitalized or received any treatment from any hospital or doctor – MLR that is almost one month after the alleged accident – FIR is delayed by almost 35 days – It evident that these injuries and MLR have not been connected with the alleged  accident – A long gap between the accident, MLR and FIR raises a doubt that the injuries suffered can be result of some subsequent accident.  (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Accident – Witness was certain that police had reached the spot while he was there - In that case there was no reason why he could not give the details to the police on the spot and why he took 10 days to pass on the details - It is a clear case where a vehicle had been introduced - The mere fact that the challan had been filed or charge had been framed is not enough – The story put up is concocted. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Aged 23 years – 25% mental disability - Unmarried – 25% permanent disability comes to Rs. 2,70,000/- - I will provide another Rs. 1 lac each for loss of marriage prospect and pain and suffering and Rs. 50,000/- for loss of amenities – Total amount awarded Rs. 6,45,000/-.  (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 307
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Appeal for enhancement of amount – Delay of 2054 days in filing the appeal – Which is inordinate, there is not even a word referred explaining the delay or conduct of the applicants - Apex Court has not approved such approach adopted by the Courts for condoning the delay on the condition that no interest would be awarded for the period of delay – Delay cannot be condoned mechanically.  (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Award – Execution – Appeals filed by the owner of the vehicle – Death of - Legal representatives brought on record – However they did not lead any evidence for how much value the legal heirs of the deceased, had received assets or property from their deceased – Therefore, no liability could have been fixed to pay the amount of compensation – Appeal accepted – Amount deposited alongwith the appeal forwarded to the Tribunal for disbursement. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Bar of Jurisdiction – Claim application dismissed – Was travelling in a bus owned by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and met with accident during the course of employment – Mere fact that claimant was allowed leave with salary will be a fact to be seen by the Tribunal while computing amount of compensation - There is no evidence that any compensation was paid to claimant under the Workmen’s Compensation Act – Appeal allowed – Case remanded – Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) – Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948). (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Compassionate Financial Assistance Rules, Rule 5 – Family would get pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the deceased for a period of  7 years – On the amount so calculated as compensation – The amount would be deducted and the remaining amount would be payable.   (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Composite negligence – Claimants should not be deprived of the compensation.   (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 - Deceased  - Aged 78 years  - Claimants , two major sons and two grand­daughters  -  The deduction made for personal expenses at 1/3 is very low -  The major sons have their own source of income and were not dependent on the deceased and the two grand­daughters are primarily dependent on their father and not on their grandfather - 50% deduction is called for. (S.C.)(2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Deceased aged 09 years –Total compensation comes to Rs. 2,40,000/-. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Deceased aged 27 years – Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11 keeping in view the age of his parents, who were 48 and 50 years old respectively – Multiplier enhanced to 17. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Deceased aged  04 years – There is no evidence available on record inkling a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits the parents could derive in future, had the child lived - The question whether there exists a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law - Therefore, in the absence of same, I am of the view that the compensation assessed to the tune of Rs.2,75,000/- for death of a child of four year meets the end of justice. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 - Deceased  - 23 years of age - Unmarried and his parents who filed the claim were in the age group of 40 to 45 years – Following Munna Lal Jaindecided by a three Judge Bench of this Court, it is held that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependants - Multiplier 18. (2018)1 SCeJ 397
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Driver – Acquitted by Criminal Court as he was not identified by the eye witness and further learned counsel for the cross objector has informed this Court that his name was not there in the F.I.R - It is the registered owner who is liable to pay compensation. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Factum of accident is to be decided on the basis of balance of probabilities and not proof beyond doubt. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – FIR – Mere registration of an FIR may not be the sole basis for returning a finding of negligence but it can be considered as material to form a prima facie view.  (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 - Future prospects - Even the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal on so called notional basis has to be treated as the established income for grant and calculation of benefit of future prospects - Income taken by the Tribunal even if the same is taken on the notional basis, has to be taken to be the established income. (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – In DDR it was mentioned that accident occurred due to darkness and due to fog - The DDR was lodged by the appellant himself - The statement in DDR appears to be correct as in the month of December, fog is there - In case, the vehicle struck from the back as mentioned in the DDR and there was fog, the appellant could not have noted the registration number of the offending vehicle – In view of the contradiction and the fact that the most important witness never deposed before the  Tribunal, Claimant had failed to establish the involvement of the said Maruti Car in the accident. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Injured – 51 years – Housewife who was also allegedly doing tailoring job lost her leg suffered injuries - Her life was crumbled as it is proved on record that there was 50 %  disability – Amputation of leg – Tribunal while awarding compensation has not considered that pain and suffering, not physical pain alone which is to be taken into account but it is the mental agony, trauma and the harassment faced by the injured and her family. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Injured - Amputation of right arm – Having lost his right arm, the claimant will need the aid of some artificial limb - By way of affixation of a prosthetic arm, the claimant would be able to attend to some of whose routine chores though certainly not as effectively as a physical natural arm - However, there is no evidence forthcoming as regards the cost of a prosthetic arm - While a cosmetic artificial arm may be available for a few thousand of rupees, a fully functional sophisticated artificial arm may cost lakhs - In the absence of any evidence regarding the same, by a rough estimation Rs. 50,000/- awarded. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Injured - Appellant has suffered 30% permanent disability and this has certainly effected his marriage prospects - The opinion of doctor is very clear and unambiguous and the Tribunal was not correct in denying the compensation on this score - Rs.50000/- awarded for loss of marriage prospects and disability/difficulty in normal sexual activities - For the loss of future prospects and amenities of life and future medical treatment, he is also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- - Rs. 3,72,000/- awarded in all.     (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Injured - Compensation – Aged 25 years – 50% permanent disability – Heads under which compensation to be awarded – Enhanced amount to carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing the complaint.. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Injured – Doctor stated that that disability on account of limitation of movement of left hip is temporary in nature and likely to improve with passage of time and physiotherapy – There is no medical opinion as to what would be the percentage of functional disability on account of 16% disability to a particular lower limb because of shortening - Under the circumstances, interest of justice would be served if the claimant is awarded an amount of Rs.32,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percent qua permanent disability suffered by him(2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Injured – Driver – Aged 25 years – Since his earning has not been proved, minimum wages for a skilled labourer are being taken to calculate the permanent disability at Rs.5471/-per month - The same is rounded off to Rs.5,500/- - Since there was 22% disability qua the limb, the same is assessed as 10% qua the whole body – Hospitalisation for 10 days – Rs.25,000/- awarded for attendant, Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.75,000/- for transportation. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Injured – Right arm amputated – Loss of his right arm would certainly have resulted in loss of income as he would not be able to effectively carry the same amount of the maps etc. to be supplied by him as he must have been carrying earlier – His earning capacity must have been reduced by atleast 50%(2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Interest – Appeal by claimants – Awarded amount enhanced – Interest payable at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization except for the period of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.    (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Interest awarded @7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the petition before the M.A.C.T. till realization instead of 6%. (S.C.)(2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Long gap of about 13 months in the date of accident and date of death - Claimant was required to lead cogent and convincing medical evidence to establish that the injuries suffered were the cause of death. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Negligence - Passenger in bus – That when he was opening the window pane his right arm went out of the window pane and at that moment when the bus was taking a turn, a truck came from the opposite side and struck against his right arm resulting in amputation of his arm – “Close” driving is not expected and is infact risky and it would be only in case of some emergent situation that to avoid some mishap that a driver may be constrained to drive in such a manner that the distance between the vehicles coming from opposite side is reduced from a safe distance to a risky distance which is normally called as “close” driving - In the present case the respondents have not led the existence of any such circumstances which could justify close driving by the bus driver – Bus driver held negligence. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Negligence – Witness that driver was driving the truck on wrong side but does not explain as to on which side the truck was being driven and how it was on wrong side in order to establish rashness or negligence of the driver. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Negligence – Evidence brought on record does not prove entire negligence of the maruti zen car, though the said car was overturned by the impact of the three wheeler tempo, therefore, negligence of the three wheeler tempo cannot be ruled out - At the best, it would be a case of negligence to the extent of 50:50 between the three wheeler tempo and the maruti zen car. (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Negligence – Not a case where a motorcycle was going behind the trailer - It is in that eventuality that a safe distance has to be maintained - Present is a case of changing of lane by the trailer and thereafter, applying sudden brakes - In such circumstances, it cannot be expected from the motorcyclist to maintain the distance as the distance would be result of swaying of the heavy vehicle. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Negligence – For arguments sake if it is assumed that it was parked, driver says that only half part of its trailer was parked on kaccha road and rest was on the metaled road - It is a case of a negligent parking - In such circumstances,  no contributory negligence can be attributed to the driver of the motorcycle - It has not been brought on record that while carrying such a hazardous material which was protruding outside the body of the trailer, sufficient safety steps were taken by the driver of the trailer. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Negligence – Tribunal has further wrongly proceeded to place implicit reliance on the affidavit `Mark B' of the appellant wherein, she asserted that her husband died due to accidental and natural causes and the driver of the bus, was not at fault and also that she did not wish to initiate any legal action against driver - The affidavit is in Punjabi - The appellant is an illiterate woman from U.P. - She does not know Punjabi.   (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Negligence – Joint statement by some persons to the effect that there was no fault or negligence of the driver of  bus – Out of the more than ten signatories to this joint statement only one has testified before the Tribunal – It is not mentioned that any of the other signatories were eye witnesses to the incident - In the absence of their testimony before the Tribunal, it is not possible to discern as to what was the basis of their assertion that the driver of the bus was not at fault and thereby to rely on that joint statement to disprove the claim of the appellants and to exonerate the bus driver of all negligence. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Negligence – It is expected of both the driver and the conductor to be extra vigilant when the bus starts moving from a bus stop that all the passengers have safely boarded - The fact that despite being in a position to see, the driver of the bus did not notice the deceased boarding the bus points to his negligence.  (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 - One side of the Road was closed due to construction work -  The road was about 88 ft. wide i.e. 44 ft. on each side with a divider in between - Offending Gas Tanker standing parked in middle of the road, without any indicators or parking lights - Maruti Car struck against the back of the Gas Tanker as the driver of car could not spot the parked tanker due to flash­lights of the oncoming traffic from front side - Tribunal helddriver of the car was himself not negligent in causing the accident and that the accident has been caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the offending stationed truck in the busy road - High Court overturned the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal and opined that it was a case of 50% contributory negligence as the tanker/offending vehicle was visible from a distance of 70 ft. - Approach of the High Court in reversing the well considered finding recorded by the Tribunal on the material fact, which was supported by the evidence on record, cannot be countenanced - Said finding of the High Court set aside. (2018)1 SCeJ 338
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Permit was given to the owner with respect to ply the vehicle in the territory of the State of Rajasthan, whereas it was found plying in the State of Haryana - Purpose for which the vehicle was being used remains the same - The permit granted to the insured was for plying and carrying passengers and at the time of accident the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers only – Insurance company liable.  (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Pregnancy of 24 weeks – Amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/-. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Standing near the front door – On account of sudden jerk – Fell down on the road – It cannot be gathered had also contributed to the accident.   (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – That dispute had been settled with the Driver by way of compromise and claimant is stopped from claiming compensation - Mother agreed to receive a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards treatment of the child and not to initiate any proceedings against the driver – Later child died – Document cannot be allowed stand in the way of claimant to get just and reasonable compensation - On the other hand, if document Ex.R4 is allowed to prevail with the Court it would be travesty of justice. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 - The compensation towards permanent disability for the injuries and loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability has to be assessed separately - Permanent disability contributing to loss of income in future has to be assessed with reference to age and longevity of the injured -  In order to arrive at exact loss of towards future earning of the injured, the age of the injured and monthly income of the injured are to be assessed - Loss of future income on account of permanent disability has to be separately assessed by multiplier method. (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – To what extent Major sons who were not dependent on the income of the father would be entitled for compensation - Whether they are entitled to any compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the absence of loss of dependency – Appellants-claimants in the present case shall be entitled to conventional heads of claim only i.e. loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 - Deceased – Aged 21 years of age - Unmarried  - Working as a contract worker - Future prospects under the head ‘loss of dependency’ - Awarded at the rate of 40% of the established income. (2018)1 SCeJ 401
  •    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Accident – Driver was acquitted by the Criminal Court – Only eye witness did not identify the driver in the Criminal Court – Had given contrary statement in the Criminal Court, his statement qua witnessing the accident in the claim petition cannot be looked into for adjudication. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Compensation  - Harmonious approach is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course - This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of “loss of income” - So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988 - Compensation received under the Rules has to be deducted from the claim assessed by the Tribunal - Compensation Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased government Employees Rule 206. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Compensation – Uniform Allowance, Washing Allowance, Petrol Allowance, Perks included for computation of family income. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Costs - Litigation of two decades, which the appellants have had to go through before different forums to claim the amounts due to them and we are of the view that they should be held entitled to costs throughout, which we assess at Rs.25,000. (S.C.)(2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Deduction -  Percentage of  - Deceased is survived by the two parents, 50 per cent amount be deducted as personal and living expenses of the deceased when the deceased is unmarried or widowed. (S.C.)(2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Employees State Insurance (34 of 1948), Section 53 - Although the legislature considered the compensation payable under Workmen Compensation Act to be comparable with the compensation available under Motor Vehicles Act, however, the benefits available under the ESI Act have not been raised to the level of alternate compensation by the legislature - Hence any compensation paid under ESI Act would not be an alternative to the compensation payable under Motor Vehicles Act - These would be two different and independent remedies available to a person - If the dependents of the employee are getting compensation or benefits under ESI Act (unlike compensation under Workmens Compensation Act) in the capacity of the deceased being an employee - Neither the Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has created any bar against filing of a claim petition by such a person nor has this been made any defence under Section 149 of the Act for the Insurance Company - Periodic payment, which is in the nature of family pension, would not absolve a stranger to the employment from discharging its independent liability created under any other statute. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) Section 53, 61 - Hence read with Section 61 of the Act, the Section 53 can be interpreted to prohibit only a second claim of similar compensation in his capacity as employee from the employer or from any person required to compensate such an injured person /dependent in his capacity as an employee under the ESI Act - Since there is no commonality between the benefits available under Motor Vehicles Act and under the provisions of ESI Act, therefore, the provisions of two Acts can not be mixed up to deny compensation to a person under Motor Vehicle Act - In a given case, even the monthly interest earned on the amount awarded under Motor Vehicles Act can be many fold higher than the total amount of benefits available under the provisions of ESI Act - Hence the benefits available under these two enactments are altogether different and separate.. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Ex-parte award – Set aside - Tribunal awarded excess of what was awarded in the ex-parte award – It Cannot be accepted that the ex-parte award fixed a bench mark for awarding compensation which cannot be crossed. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Future prospects - Standardized percentage is capable of being varied if the evidence is so led  - Percentage for calculating future rise in income is no bar to future prospects being taken at a higher level where the assessment is based on actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/the Court that the future prospects were higher than the standard percentage provided in Pranay Sethi (2017-4)188 PLR 693 (SC)  -  Assessed income of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs.6,273 per month - Tribunal, however added approximately 100 per cent towards future rise in income and considered the prospective income at Rs.12,000 per month, and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased -  High Court declined to accept the future income rise as 100 per cent and took the same as 50 per cent in view of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009-3)155 PLR 22 (SC),  Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017-4)188 PLR 693 (SC),  while examining the observations in Sarla Verma, gave its imprimatur to the addition of 50 per cent to actual salary of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, as in the present case -  However, in order passed in Hem Raj (2018-2)190 PLR 480 (S.C.), while taking note of the views expressed by Pranay Sethi, it has been observed that the percentage for calculating future rise in income is no bar to future prospects being taken at a higher level where the assessment is based on actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/the Court that the future prospects were higher than the standard percentage  - Two certificates dated 16.10.1998 and 8.7.2005 (date of accident 16.8.1998) were proved in terms whereof the deceased’s future prospects would have entitled her to a gross salary in the range of Rs.14,000 to Rs. 17,000 per month - No doubt the second certificate is dated 8.7.2005, after a lapse of 7 years from the first certificate, but then that would be a more realistic estimate of what a person holding that post would be earning at that stage of time - Thus, the assessment of the Tribunal is based on the evidence led in the present case - As noticed above, the standardized percentage is capable of being varied if the evidence is so led - Tribunal was justified in giving a 100 per cent increase and taking the future prospects at Rs.12,000 per month. (S.C.)(2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Future prospects - There cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guess work in the facts and circumstances of a case - Both the situations stand at the same footing . (S.C.)(2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Future prospects - View taken in National Insurance Company Limited v.. Pranay Sethi and Ors. - (2017-4)188 P.L.R. 693 (S.C.), is no bar to future prospects being taken at level higher than 25% in case the deceased above 40 years or 50% in case the deceased was below 40 years if evidence on record so warrants - Standardization may be the increase based on presumption but when there is an actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/Court that future prospects was higher than the standard percentage, there is no bar to the Court/Tribunal awarding higher compensation on that basis - We find merit in the submission. (S.C.)(2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 480
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Injured – Had suffered injuries on almost every several parts of the body and had to undergo bone grafting and implants installations an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded, Rs. 30,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 50,000/- special diet, transportation and attendant, Rs. 38,000/- for disability etc.  (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Insurance - Cheque was dishonoured, the policy was cancelled after notice and intimation of the cancellation was given to RTO Office, Financer Bank and to owner of vehicle – There is a time gap of eight months between cancellation of policy and the accident - There was no policy in existence at the time of the accident - The onus was upon the Insurance Company to show the policy was cancelled prior to the accident and said cancellation was conveyed, the company has duly discharged their onus. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 – Salary which stands revised, later on but w.e.f. the date prior to the date of accident - Admittedly, pay-scales of the Govt. doctors in Punjab has been revised and the salary of the claimant has been increased – Increase in salary has to be taken into consideration. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)  Section 166 – Appellant (claimants) did not file an appeal for enhancement of compensation amount against that part of the award passed by the Tribunal nor chose to file any cross-objection in the First Appeal filed by the insurer before the High Court - Moreover, from the judgment of the High Court there is no indication that any attempt  was  made  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  to  ask  for enhanced compensation – Has not asked for any relief for enhanced compensation – It will not be appropriate for this Court  to  consider  the  argument  regarding  the  quantum  of compensation at the instance of the appellants claimants. (S.C.)(2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)  Section 166 – Contributory negligence – The question of contributory negligence would arise when both parties are involved in the accident due to rash and negligent driving - In a case such as the present one, when the maruti car was following the truck and no fault can be attributed to the truck driver, the blame must rest on the driver of the maruti car for having driven his vehicle rashly and negligently.  (S.C.)(2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)  Section 166 – Deceased had loaded his produce on the tractor and also accompanied the tractor for unloading the same to Holealur and while returning met with  an accident – Factum of deceased had travelled along with his goods at the time of accident, the insurer would be obliged to satisfy the compensation amount awarded to the claimants.  (S.C.)(2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) – Computation of income – Salary certificate or Income Tax returns  - There is nothing in the law which requires the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased only on the basis of a salary certificate instead of the income tax return for arriving at a just and fair compensation to be paid to the claimants for the loss of life -   Deceased employee of FCI - Employer deposed that the deceased was getting Rs. 8848/- as gross monthly salary and proved salary certificate – Tribunal passed the award on the basis that the salary he was receiving i.e. Rs. 8848/- - Income Tax Returns of the deceased showed an income of Rs. 2,42,606/- per annum for the assessment year 2004-05 and Rs. 2,17,130 for the assessment year 2003-04 - No doubt that if the salary certificate is taken into account the salary of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 1,06,176/-  since the gross salary was Rs.8848 per month -  That, however, in our view does not mean that the income of the deceased as stated in the Income Tax return should be totally ignored -  It is not possible to agree with the observation of the Tribunal that it was necessary for the claimants to “explain the said contradiction” between two figures of income -  The claimants had led reliable evidence that the deceased had returned an income of Rs. 2,42,606/- - Indeed, it was possible that the deceased had income from other sources also - Income taken as per Income Tax Returns. (2018)2 SCeJ 1235 DOWNLOAD
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) - High Court has erred in granting Rs.50,000/-­ as loss of love and affection to each of the claimants - Claimants together would be entitled to Rs.70,000/-­ for love and affection and funeral expenses etc (S.C.)(2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) - Injured – Commission agent – No evidence to show his income or that he was a commission agent  - Had he been a commission agent, he would have been registered and could have easily produced his records -  Hospitalization was only for 10 – 12 days -  Disability certificate shows shortening of the limb by half inch and he would have unable to sit on the ground and the movement of the spine was also limited - Claimant had the opportunity to produce his records to show the amount of loss in the income but failed to show the difference in the income -  No evidence regarding his income and income taken at Rs.5,000/- per month (accident 1999)  - There is no loss in the income - As there was a fracture, the claimant would not have been able to attend to his work for few months and would have taken the services of a physiotherapist and an attendant to help in the daily chores - Awarded : Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-, Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-,  Treatment expenses Rs.14,028/-,  Loss of income for six months (Rs.5000 x 6) Rs.30,000/-, Physiotherapy (Rs.2000 x 6) Rs.12,000/-, Attendant Charges (Rs.2000 x 6) Rs.12,000/-,  Special diet Rs.7,500/-. Total Rs.2,25,528/-.  (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) - Injured – Driver  -  50 years  - 60% disability  - The minimum wages of a skilled worker in year 1999 was not more than Rs.1,787/- per month -  Even if the income is taken as Rs.2,000/- per month and considering the age the addition towards future prospects would only be 10% and with that addition the total income comes to Rs.2,200/- per month and if the disability of 60% is calculated the amount payable for the disability would be Rs.1320 x 12 x 13 = Rs.2,05,920/-.  (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Schedule 10, Regulation 6.7 – Indicates that at the time of the accident the claimant after having entered the GT road from the side road from Kunjpura side had reached the middle of the GT road (the divider) near the ITI intersection - The scooter, thus, having virtually crossed the road on which the truck was approaching, the onus clearly was on the truck driver to have noticed the scooter and avoid collision with it – Statements along with site plan clearly indicate that the accident took place at a spot near the divider of the road, thereby indicating that the scooter had crossed the road on which the truck was approaching - Hence, it is difficult to accept the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the scooter merely based on the Regulations. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)  - Sale of vehicle – Record from the RTO Office had mentioned that the affidavit had been given seeking transfer – He had stated that all the forms and affidavits were available on the record – Once it was held that the vehicle had been sold, possession had been given – Liability to pay the compensation could not have been imposed on the original owner. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER