This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.
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
By sclaw
Related Post
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Just Compensation — Award of compensation for prosthetic limb — No fixed guidelines for compensation amount — Courts can deviate from governmental notifications if they are too low — Emphasis on “restitutio in integrum” principle to restore the claimant as close as possible to their pre-injury state — Claimants are entitled to choose private centres for prosthetic limbs and renewal costs should be considered — Compensation can be awarded for periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs.
Apr 28, 2026
sclaw
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Just Compensation — Award of compensation for prosthetic limb — No fixed guidelines for compensation amount — Courts can deviate from governmental notifications if they are too low — Emphasis on “restitutio in integrum” principle to restore the claimant as close as possible to their pre-injury state — Claimants are entitled to choose private centres for prosthetic limbs and renewal costs should be considered — Compensation can be awarded for periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs.
Apr 22, 2026
sclaw
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 2(30), 173, 174 — Compensation — Liability for accident during requisition of vehicle — Bus owned by a school was requisitioned by the appellant (District Magistrate) for election purposes — Accident occurred while the bus was under the control of the appellant — Issue of shifting of liability from the insurance company to the requisitioning authority — Held, when a public authority requisitions a privately owned vehicle for public purposes, the nature of possession and control changes entirely, and the requisitioning authority assumes responsibility for consequences arising from such compelled use — The owner is divested of custody and decision-making power, and the vehicle is placed at the disposal of the State for governmental functions — During this period, the owner neither directs its use nor derives any benefit from it — It only stands to reason that in such circumstances, if an untoward incident occurs, responsibility would properly to rest with the requisitioning authority and not with the insurer engaged by the owner for ordinary, private or commercial use — The requisitioning authority, by assuming control and deploying the vehicle for its own purposes, assumes with that control the corresponding responsibility — Appeal dismissed.
Mar 24, 2026
sclaw
