Category: Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 149(2)(a)(ii) – Accident – Willful negligence while employing driver – While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence – If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NIRMALA KOTHARI — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Vehicle Owner’s Insurance Claim Cannot Be Repudiated Merely Because Driver Was Possessing Fake Licence: SC HELD “If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. “

Vehicle Owner’s Insurance Claim Cannot Be Repudiated Merely Because Driver Was Possessing Fake Licence: SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 4 March 2020 9:22 PM “If the driver produces a licence…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Compensation – Suffered serious injuries resulting in damage to brain -Normally interest should be granted from the date of filing of the petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest should again be from the date of filing of the petition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAJAL — Appellant Vs. JAGDISH CHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

IMP: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 140, 166 and 166(1)(c) – Fatal motor accident – Compensation Whether the major sons of the deceased who are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? Held:- YES claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs. 1,00,000/­ and Rs. 1,50,000/­ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. BIRENDER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.