January 19, 2025 12:22 am

Accident—Claim Petition—Deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question—Deceased himself was responsible for the accident—Claim not maintainable.

Bysclaw

Oct 29, 2018

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

The primary issues revolved around whether the compensation awarded by the MACT and High Court was adequate, particularly under heads like loss of income, future medical expenses, and non-pecuniary damages – The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court’s correct adoption of the notional income and enhancement of loss of income but criticized its failure to adequately consider other compensation heads — The court emphasized the need to follow established guidelines for multipliers and future prospects additions, and highlighted the importance of considering doctors’ recommendations and the actual needs of the victim — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 48,00,000, matching the petitioner’s claimed amount.

Jan 11, 2025 sclaw

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 162 — Scheme for golden hour — Obligation of Central Government — The court emphasizes the statutory obligation of the Central Government to create a scheme for cashless treatment of accident victims during the golden hour as mandated by Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) — This obligation is not discretionary but a legal requirement.

Jan 11, 2025 sclaw

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304A — Rash and Negligent Driving — The court found that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the death of one person and injuries to another — The prosecution presented evidence demonstrating that the accused’s vehicle hit the motorcycle from behind — This is corroborated by witness testimony and the fact that the motorcycle was dragged a considerable distance — The court dismissed the defence’s argument that the incident was due to contributory negligence, pointing out that the road was wide enough for the accused to avoid the collision and that there was no evidence of a sudden turn by the victim — The courts also noted the accused’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation when questioned about the incriminating evidence — The fact that the victim suffered 19 wounds also supports the court’s conclusion that the accused’s driving was rash and negligent —The court rejected the petitioner’s plea for leniency due to his family circumstances, emphasizing that the accused’s actions caused a death — Based on the above points, the court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.

Dec 27, 2024 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Promotions based on merit-cum-seniority, suitability should be judged individually, not comparatively, and officers meeting the minimum criteria cannot be denied promotion based on a merit list

Jan 17, 2025 sclaw

A micro or small enterprise does not need to be registered under Section 8 of the MSMED Act to make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18

Jan 12, 2025 sclaw

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and the court must assess whether the wife had sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband despite the decree

Jan 12, 2025 sclaw

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 309 — Executive Orders as Recruitment Rules — The court affirms that in the absence of formal rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, executive orders issued by the government can serve as the governing recruitment rules — Specifically, Government Order (G.O.) dated 07th April, 2008 is recognized as the applicable executive order for the Medical Education Service.

Jan 12, 2025 sclaw