Motor Vehicle ACT, 1988 Important Judgments: Compiled by Hanif. S. Mulia

MOTOR VEHICLE
ACT, 1988
IMPORTANT
JUDGMENTS
Compiled by Hanif. S. Mulia

INDEX
Sr. Particulars Page
No. No
A Index 1
1 Tort 5
2 Section 140 5
3 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 7
4 Under Section 163-A of M.V. Act 9
5 Jurisdiction 17
6 Legal Representative 19
7 Limitation 23
8 Workmen Compensation Act 23
9 Negligence 25
10 Calculation of compensation-Quantum 30
11 Driving Licence 36
12 Private Investigator 48
13 Helper- Cleaner- Coolie 48
14 Premium and Additional Premium 49
15 Goods as defined u/s 2(13) 50
16 Goods Vehicle and Gratuitous Passengers 50
17 Vehicle hired/leased 53
18 Which kind of licence required for LMV- 54
LGV-HGV-HTV-MGV
19 Avoidance Clause 58
20 Injuries and Disabilities 59
21 Review 60
22 Employees’ State Insurance Act and 61
Employee's Compensation Act
23 Life Insurance 61
24 Medical Reimbursement 62
MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.2

25 Family Pension 62
26 Compassionate Appointment 62
27 Pillion Rider 63
28 Commencement of Policy and Breach of 66
Policy
29 Driver-Owner 68
30 Travelling on roof-top of the bus 72
31 Private Vehicle 73
32 Permit 74
33 Hire and Reward owner/driver for 77
production of DL
34 Transfer of Vehicle 78
35 Post Mortum Report 79
36 Dishonour of Cheque 80
37 Pay and Recover 81
38 Stepped into the shoe of the owner 87
39 Cover Note 90
40 Hypothecation 92
41 Transfer of the Vehicle 93
42 Public Place u/s 2(34) 94
43 Militant Attack- Hijack-Terrorist 94
Attack Murder, Heart Attack –Arising
out of Accident
44 Dismiss for Default 96
45 Burden of Proof 97
45A Stationary Vehicle 97
46 Tractor-Trolley 98
47 Registration of Vehicle/Number Plate 100
48 Stolen Vehicle 101
49 Hit and Run - Under Section 161 101
50 Third Party 102

51 Disbursement and Apportionment 103
52 FIR, Charge sheet, Involvement of 105
Vehicle, Identity of Vehicle
53 Necessary Party 106
54 Conductor’s Licence 107
55 Succession Certificate 107
56 Damage to property 108
57 Settlement 109
58 Mediclaim 110
59 Did not Suffer Financial Loss/ 110
Government Servant
60 Railway 111
61 Overloading 112
62 Abate 113
63 Fitness Certificate 113
64 Labourer of Hirer 114
65 IMT 115
66 Use of Vehicle other than for 116
registered
67 Central Motor Vehicles Rules 117
68 Miscellaneous 118

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1. Tort :-
1 - Whether PWD is liable to pay compensation when it
is proved that roads are not maintained properly-
held- yes- PWD is liable on the ground of principle
of res ipsa loquitor and common law.
1987 ACJ 783 (SC)
2 - U/s 163A, 166 & 158(6) of MV Act- claim petition-
is it necessary in all case for claimant to file
claim petition? Held –no- report under section
158(6) is enough to treat the same as claim
petition-
Jai Prakash v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd,
reported in 2010 (2) GLR 1787 (SC), 2011ACJ 1916
(BOM)
3 - Medical negligence- sterilization operation-
failure of- liability of State.
2013 ACJ 406 (HP)
HOME
2. Section 140 :-
1 - U/S 140 – No fault liability – claimant need not to
plea and establish negligence he is required to
prove that injuries sustained due to vehicular
accident.
2011 ACJ 1603 (Bombay)
But P & H High Court has held ( 2011 ACJ 2128)
- in that case claimant pleaded that he was earning
Rs 7000 p/m. – in deposition, he deposed that he
was earning Rs 3000 p/m.-whether oral evidence
which is contrary to the pleadings could be
accepted in absence of any other documentary
evidence- held –no.
2 - NFL application not filled along with main
petition- Tribunal rejected the application filed
later on- HC confirmed the said order- whether

valid- held- no- claimant can file NFL u/s 140 at
any time during pendency of main claim petition.
2010 (8) SCC 620.
3 - No order of investment can be passed in the order
passed u/s 140 of the M. V. Act.
F.A. 1749 of 2012, dated 3/3/14 (Coram Jst.
Harsha Devani)
4 - Constructive res judicata - Whether order passed
u/s 140 of the Act, qua negligence of the driver is
binding to the tribunal as constructive res
judicata, while deciding the claim petition u/s 166
of the Act? - Held- Yes.
F.A. No. 264 of 2005 dated 15/02/2013, Minor
Siddharth Makranbhai. (2012 (2) GLH 465- Siddik
U. Solanki) and 2016 ACJ 842 – NIA Com. V/s
patel Geetaben (FA No.3109 of 2007, decided on
22.8.2014)
Judgment delivered in the case of 2012 (2)
GLH 465- Siddik U. Solanki is modified in First
Appeal No.2103 of 2005 and allied matters,
reported in 2015 STPL(Web) 1988 GUJ = 2015 ACC
630(Guj)= 2016(1) GLH 68 -N. I. I. Com v/s Kalabhai
Maganbhai Koli(Coram Jst. Akil Kuresi and
Jst.Vipul M. Pancholi) and held that no other
defence u/s 149(2) of the Act would be
available to IC at the stage of Section 140 of
the Act and, therefore, Tribunal is not
required to decide at the stage of Section 140
of the Act to decide defence raised u/s 149(2)
of the Act.
5 - U/s 140- Whether amount paid u/s 140 of the can be
recovered in case if the main claim petition
preferred u/s 166 of M V Act is dismissed or
withdrawn subsequent to the passing an order u/s
140 of M V Act - Held- No.
2014 ACJ 708 (Raj), 2015 ACJ 1815 (MP) –
SC judgment in the case of O I Com. v/s Angad
Kol, reported in 2009 ACJ 1411, para Nos. 4 to

8 and Eshwarappa v/s C. S. Gurushanthappa,
reported in 2010 ACJ 2444 (SC), Indra Devi v/s
Bagada Ram, reported in 2010 ACJ 2451 (SC)
relied upon.
But see 2016 ACJ 295 (del)
6 - An application u/s 140 has to be decided as
expeditiously as possible – an order of hear the
same along with the main claim petition is bad.
2013 ACJ 1371 (Bom).
HOME
3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 :–
1 - O 11 R 14- whether claimant has right to seek
direction from Tribunal to direct the other side to
produce necessary documents - held – yes
2011 ACJ 1946 (AP)
2 - O 41 R 33- whether the appellate court has powers
to modify the award in absence of claimant- held –
yes
2011 ACJ 1570 (Guj)
3 - Death of owner of vehicle- application by claimant
to join widow of owner- objected by insurance
company on the ground of limitation- whether
objections are maintainable? Held- no- scheme of
act does not provide for the same-
2011 ACJ 1717
4 - MV Act u/s 169- CPC – whether Tribunal can exercise
all powers of Civil Court without prejudice to the
provisions of Section 169 of MV Act? –held- yes-
Tribunal can follow procedure laid down in CPC
2011 ACJ 2062 (DEL)
5 - IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground that
though notice to driver and owner was issued to
produce copy of DL but they did not produce and
same amounts to breach of the terms of the IP-
whether IC is held liable- held- yes-Issuance of
notice neither proves objections of IC nor draws
any adverse inference against insured-
2012 ACJ 107- 1985 ACJ 397 SC followed

6 - Whether Tribunal can dismiss an application
preferred u/O 26 Rule 4 and Order 16 Rule 19 for
taking evidence by Court Commissioner? -Held- No
2012 ACJ 1623 (Chh)
7 - Amendment in claim petition preferred u/s 163A-
whether can be allowed- Held- Yes
2012 ACJ 2809
8- O-6 R-17 – IC moved an application for impleading
driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle-
whether, can be allowed if claimant does not want
any relief against them?- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1116, SC judgments followed.
9 - Powers to take additional evidence- when can be
allowed- Guideline.
2013 ACJ 1399 (P&H)
10 - Whether failure of the driver to produce licence
u/O 12, R-8 of CPC would be sufficient to draw an
inference that driver did not possess a valid and
effective licence.
2013 ACJ 2530 (Del).
11 - Execution – Attachment of residential
property/house- whether executing court can pass
such order of attachment?- Held- Yes.- Special
privilege provided under CPC is not applicable in
the case of enforcement of award.
2014 ACJ 1467 (P&H) – Prem Chand v/s Akashdeep
(K. Kannan. J)
12 - CPC - Order 11 Rule 14 - Notice for production of
document by IC - the object of notice is to save
time and expenses only, the cost or the expenses of
such evidence could have been imposed on the owner
or the driver of the vehicle and nothing more, if
in response to the notice, the licence was not
produced, the Insurance Company ought to have
called for the record of the R.T.O. or could have
produced other evidence.
Karan Singh v/s Manoharlal, MP High Court,
reported in 1989(1) ACC 291 = 1989 ACJ 177 –
Para 9.

13 - Tribunal is a ‘COURT’ and proceedings before it are
judicial proceedings- whether Evidence Act applies
to MV Act? –held –yes
2011 ACJ 2228 (JAR).
14 - DL- IC moved an application for direction against

owner/driver for production of DL - owner/driver
failed to produce DL – Will not absolve IC from
its liability. - IC has to prove its case by
leading evidence.
2015 ACJ 1125 (Ker).
15 - Claims tribunal and civil court- Jurisdiction –
inter se dispute between registered owner and de
facto owner – can only be decided by Tribunal.
2015 ACJ 1251 (Ker).
HOME
4. Under Section 163-A of M.V. Act:-
1 - U/S 166 & 163A- income of deceased more than
Rs.40,000- whether Tribunal can reject an
application u/s 163A? Held – no- Tribunal ought to
have converted the same one u/s 166
2004 ACJ 934 (SC) but See 2014 ACJ 2434
(Gauhati). It is also held in 2016 ACJ 176
(P&H) that Tribunal has no power to suo moto
allow such application.
2 - Unknown assailant fired on driver while he was
driving- truck dashed with tree- whether Tribunal
was justified in concluding that accident was a
vehicular accident and claimant is entitled for
compensation u/s 163A of MV Act– held- yes
2000 ACJ 801 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1658 (MP), one
another judgement of Guj High court, Jst R K
Abichandani J
3 - U/s 163A- truck capsized- driver died- whether
entitled for compensation- held –yes- negligence is
not required to be proved in 163A application
2011 ACJ 2442 (MP)

4 - New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand
Mukhi and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417,
wherein, the son of the owner was driving the
vehicle, who died in the accident, was not regarded
as third party. In the said case the court held
that neither Section 163-A nor Section 166 would be
applicable.
5 - The deceased was traveling on Motor Cycle, which he
borrowed from its real owner for going from Ilkal
to his native place Gudur. When the said motor
cycle was proceeding on Ilkal-Kustagl, National
Highway, a bullock cart proceeding ahead of the
said motor cycle carrying iron-sheet, which
suddenly stopped and consequently deceased who was
proceeding on the said motor cycle dashed bullock
cart. Consequent to the aforesaid incident, he
sustained fatal injuries over his vital part of
body and on the way to Govt. Hospital, Ilkal, he
died.
It was forcefully argued by the counsel
appearing for the respondent that the claimants are
not the `third party', and therefore, they are not
entitled to claim any benefit under Section 163-A of
the MVA. In support of the said contention, the
counsel relied on the decision of this Court in the
case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi,
(2008) 5 SCC 736; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 417, 2015
ACJ 1477 (Cal)- Ningamma v/s UiI Com, 2009 ACJ 2020
(SC) followed.
In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736,
wherein, it has been categorically held that in a
case where third party is involved, the liability
of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was
also held in the said decision that where, however,
compensation is claimed for the death of the owner
or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract
of insurance being governed by the contract qua IP,

the claim of the claimant against the insurance
company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was
held in the said decision that Section 163-A of the
MVA cannot be said to have any application in
respect of an accident wherein the owner of the
motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision
further held that the question is no longer res
integra. The liability under section 163-A of the
MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person
cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient,
with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the
deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms
of Section 163-A of the MVA. Apex Court held - “the
ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly
applicable to the facts of the present case. In the
present case, the deceased was not the owner of the
motorbike in question. He borrowed the said
motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot
be held to be employee of the owner of the
motorbike although he was authorised to drive the
said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would
step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike.”
2009 (13) SCC 710 – Ningmma v/s United India.
6 - S. 163A - liability under - liability u/s. 163A is
on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be
both, a claimant as also a recipient - for the said
purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance
could be taken recourse to - liability of insurance
company was confined to Rs. 1,00,000 - appeal
partly allowed.
2008(5) SCC 736 Rajni Devi.
But when trust is the owner of the vehicle and
its employee sustain injury, IC of such vehicle can
be held responsible, provided such vehicle is
covered with the comprehensive policy.
2015 ACJ 1623 (Raj)
7 - Deceased died due to electrocution while engaged in
welding job on a stationary truck and not due to
any fault or omission on the part of driver-

whether the claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable
and IC can be held liable?- held- yes- any fault or
omission on the part of driver has no relevance and
driver is not necessary party in claim petition
filed u/s 163A
2011 ACJ 2608- several SC ratios followed
8 - U/s 163A- Motorcycle hit a large stone lying on the
tar road- fatal injury- Tribunal found that
deceased was negligent and entitled for
compensation- IC led no evidence to point out that
deceased was negligent- IC held liable.
2012 ACJ 1- Sinitha but also see A.Sridhar,
reported in 2012 AAC 2478 and also see – 2004
ACJ 934.
9 - U/s 163A- whether the claim petition u/s 163A is
maintainable without joining the owner and driver
of the offending vehicle? -held- yes- since the
question of fault is not of the offending vehicle
is of no consequence
2012 ACJ 271
10 - U/s 163A – procedure and powers of Tribunal-
Tribunal need not to go into the negligence part-
SC decisions referred to- Guidelines issued.
2012 ACJ 1065 (Ker)
11 - U/s 163A- deceased died due to heart attack-
whether claimants are entitled for compensation u/s
163A of the MV Act?- Held- No- in absence of any
evidence to the effect that deceased died due to
heavy burden or there any other sustainable ground.
2012 ACJ 1134 (AP)- Murder – 2012 ACJ (Ker)
Culpable Homicide- Altercation between
conductor and passenger- conductor pushed passenger
out of bus – passenger crushed in the said bus –
conductor prosecuted u/s 324 & 304 of IPC- whether
in such situation, since driver failed in his duty
to stop the bus, he is liable for accident. Owner
of bus vicariously held liable and IC is is
directed to indemnify owner of the bus – further

held that accident was arising out of use of motor
vehicle.
12 - u/s 163A- Minor girl travelling in the Auto
Rickshaw, received injuries from the bottle thrown
from the other vehicle- whether claim petition u/s
163A is maintainable in such case? - Held -Yes
2012 ACJ 1162 (Ker).
13 - U/s 163A- whether the compensation has to be
awarded u/s 163A- it has to be as per the structure
formula given under the Second Schedule? - Held-
Yes- the benefit of filling a petition on no fault
liability can be claimed on the basis of income
with a cap of Rs.40,000/-
2012 ACJ 1251 (Del)- 2013 ACJ 2870, Gaytri v/s
Amir Sing (Del) - various SC decisions are
considered.
14 - Earlier direction of High Court to disposed of
application preferred u/s 166 of the Act, while
deciding an appeal preferred against the order
passed u/s 163A of the Act. Held simultaneous
petitions u/s 166 and 163A are not maintainable.
2012 (2) GLH 325- Ravindra Senghani
15 - U/s 163A- whether a claim petition is maintainable
when the income of deceased is more than 40,000/-
per annum?- Held- No.
2012 ACJ 1687
16 - U/s 163A- Claim petition under 163A is maintainable
against other vehicle, which was not at fault?-
Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 1896-SC judgments followed.
17 - Whether claimant can convert an application u/s 166
to 163A and vise versa?- Held- yes- SC judgements
followed- 2011 ACJ 721
2012 ACJ 1986
18 - U/s 163A- whether driver of the offending vehicle
is required to be joined? Held- Not necessary.
2012 AAC 2495 (Del)

19 - U/s 163A- collision between two vehicles- joint
tortfeasor- whether the tortfeasor is entitled to
get amount of compensation?- Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2206 (Ker)- 2004 ACJ Deepal G. Soni
(SC), relied upon.
20 - U/s 163A- Whether Tribunal can award higher amount
than what is been provided under the Second
Schedule? -Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2292 (Kar) – 2008 ACJ 2148 (SC), Sapna
v/s UII Com., 2015 ACJ 1542 (All)
21 - Claim petition u/s 163A for the death of the owner
is maintainable? -Held -No- claimants cannot be
both i.e owner and claimant.
2012 ACJ 2400 (MP). 2008 ACJ 1441- Rajni Devi
and 2009 ACJ 2020- Ningamma (both SC -
followed).
22 - Use of vehicle- live electricity wire- driver came
in contact with it died- whether claim petition is
maintainable? -Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ (AP). SC judgments relied upon.
23 - Conversion of an application preferred u/s 166 to
one under 163A- whether court can go into the
legality and correctness of pleadings at such
stage? -Held- No.
2012 AAC 2610 (Del)- 2012 ACJ 2482 (P&H)
24 - S.166, S.163A- Claim for compensation - Remedy u/s.
163A and S. 166 being final and independent of each
other, claimant cannot pursue them simultaneously -
Claim petition finally determined under S. 163A -
Claimant would be precluded from proceeding further
with petition filed under S. 166.
2011 SC 1138- Dhanjibhai K Gadhvi.
25 - The law laid down in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna
Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441 : (AIR 1977 SC
1248) was accepted by the legislature while
enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by
introducing Section 163-A of the Act providing for
payment of compensation notwithstanding anything

contained in the Act or in any other law for the
time being in force that the owner of a motor
vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable
to pay in the case of death or permanent
disablement due to accident arising out of the use
of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in
the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the
victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made
under sub-section (1) of Section 163-A of the Act,
the claimant shall not be required to plead or
establish that the death or permanent disablement
in respect of which the claim has been made was due
to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the
owner of the vehicle concerned. in the judgments of
three-Judge Bench in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna
Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441 : (AIR 1977 SC
1248)
26 - Unknown vehicle-whether claim petition u/s 163A is
maintainable?- Held- yes.
2013 ACJ 290 (Del)
27 - u/s 163A, 140 & 166 – conversion of an application
u/s 166 from 163A, after getting an amount under
section 140 is permissible- Held No.
2013 ACJ 1082.
28 - Claim petition u/s 166 and 163-A- An application
u/s 163A is allowed- Whether a claim petition u/s
166 is then maintainable?- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1779 (Guj)
29 - Claim petition u/s 163-A- income of the deceased is
shown, more than 40,000/-per annum- whether is
maintainable? - Held- No.
2014 ACJ 2329 (Guj) New.I.A. Com. v/s Pachan
Manek Gadhvi.
30 - 163-A- When it is proved that claimant/deceased
himself was negligent in causing the accident- IC
is not liable to pay compensation.
2013 ACJ 2586 (AP) Bajaj Allianz v/s Gaddam
Swami, 2013 ACJ 2622 (Ker) – O.I. Com. v/s P.P.
Nandanan.

31 - 163A- Driver and Cleaner sustained injuries while
unloading goods- Whether claim petition u/s 163A is
maintainable?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 1206
32 - Judgments of Sinitha and Shila Dutta are referred
to Full Bench.
2013 ACJ 2856- UII Com. v/s Sunil Kumar
33 - Conversion of an application u/s 163A to one u/s
166- whether permissible?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 493 (AP),
34 - 163A- Failure of brakes- whether in such situation,
a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable?- Held
-Yes.
2014 ACJ 1128
35 - U/s 163A- Whether the IC is required to be
exonerated in a case where IC has failed to prove
and point out that deceased himself was negligent-
Held- No- IC held liable.
2012 SC 797- Sinitha's case.
36 - Whether a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable
when award is already passed u/s 161 of the Act?-
Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2314 (Chh).
37 - Second Schedule of M.V. Act- needs to be revised
and further direction are given to award
compensation in the cases of child aged between 0
to 5 years and 5 to 10 years.
2014 ACJ Puttamma v/s Narayana Reddy (SC).
38 - Claimant of claim petition preferred u/s 163A are
not entitled for compensation under the head loss
of consortium, funeral etc.
2015 ACJ 1100 (P&H).
39 - Claim petition preferred u/s 163A – joint
tortfeasors – tribunal decided negligence in ratio
of 50:50 between two vehicles. - liability of other
IC will not be limited to 50% only.
2015 ACJ 1271 (Ker)
HOME

5. Jurisdiction:-
1 - Jurisdiction – claimant residing in District H-
insurance company is also having office in District
C- whether the Tribunal at District C has
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition- held-
yes
2009 ACJ 564 (SC)
2 - Accident occurred in Nepal while deceased was on
pilgrimage- Journey started from India- Opponents
are Indian citizens and having offices in India-
Whether claim petition in India is maintainable-
Held- Yes-
2012 ACJ 1452 ((P&H)
3 - Jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat– guideline.
2012 ACJ 1608.
4 - In accident vehicle got damaged- claim petition
filed against one of the IC- claim petition, partly
allowed- claimant preferred another application
against another IC- whether maintainable? -Held-
No.
2012 AAC 2944 (Chh)- SC judgments followed.
5 - Jurisdiction- Damage to property of owner- whether
maintainable?- Held- No- tribunal has jurisdiction
to entertain only those applications wherein damage
is caused to property of the third party. 2005 ACJ
(SC) 1, Dhanraj v/s N.I.A. Com is relied upon.
2012 ACJ 2737.
6 - Jurisdiction- after the death of the her husband,
deceased was staying with her brother- whether
claim petition can be preferred at the place where
she is staying with her brother? -held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2811
7 - U/s 166(2) – jurisdiction of Tribunal - Claimant
migrant labourer - Appeal by insurer - Award amount
not disputed - Setting aside of award on ground of
lack of territorial jurisdiction - Would only
result in re-trial before appropriate Tribunal -

S.C. would exercise powers under Art.142 to do
complete justice in such a case.
AIR 2009 SC 1022- Mantoo Sarkar v/s O.I. Com.
Ltd., 2015 ACJ 2512 (MP)
7-A Territorial Jurisdiction – even if accident
occurred out the territorial jurisdiction of
tribunal and claimant and driver/owner staying out
side the territorial jurisdiction of tribunal,
claim petition is maintainable, if IC is carrying
business with the territorial jurisdiction of
tribunal.
2016 (3) SCC 43 – Malati Sardar v/s N I Com.
8 - Jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal - Claim for loss of
business income due to non-use of vehicle - Falls
under head damage to property - Claims Tribunal
would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide
such claim.
AIR 2007 Guj 39 but also see 2013 ACJ 1732
(P&H).
9 - Jurisdiction- where a claim petition is
maintainable- Good discussion.
2013 ACJ 1787
10 - Cause of action- Jurisdiction- Accident occurred in
Nepal- Bus was registered in India- Whether a claim
petition is maintainable in India?- Held- No.
2013ACJ 1807 (Bih).
11 - Estoppel- Consumer court held that driver was
holding valid licence and IC is directed to pay
amount by Consumer court- Whether IC can take same
defence before the MAC Tribunal- Held- No. IC is
estopped from raising such stand.
24 ACJ (Kar) 2736.
12 - U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its deletion-
accident occurred prior to the said deletion- claim
petition filed after deletion and since years after
the accident - whether claim petition is
maintainable? - Held- Yes.

13 - Limitation – claim petition filed in 2005, whereas
accident occurred in the year 1990- whether claim
petition is time barred?- held- no
2011ACJ 1585 (Jark)
14 - Limitation- U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its
deletion- accident occurred prior to the said
deletion- claim petition filed after deletion and
since years after the accident - whether claim
petition is maintainabile? - Held- Yes.
2015 ACJ 221 (Chh)
15 - Tribunal dismissed claim petition on the ground
that accident is not proved- whether Tribunal
erred?- held- yes- Tribunal is supposed to conduct
‘inquiry’ not ‘trial’ in claim petition and summery
procedure has to be evolved- Tribunal could have
invoked power envisaged u/s 165 of Evidence Act
2011 ACJ 1475 (DEL)
HOME
6. Legal Representative:-
1 - Legal representative- brother & married daughter-
evidence that brother and his family was staying
with deceased and brother was dependent- whether
claim petition preferred by brother is
maintainable? Held- yes
1987 ACJ 561(SC), 2005 ACJ 1618 (Guj), 2012 AAC
2965 (Mad)- 2014 ACJ 1454 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 1759
(All) – GSTRC v/s Ramanbhai prabhatbhai – 1987
ACJ 561(SC)) followed.
But see 2014 ACJ 1669 (All)- Chandrawati
v/s Ram Sewak – 2007 ACJ 1279 (SC) – Manjuri
Bera v/s O I Com. relied on.
2 - Widow- remarriage by her- whether claim petition by
her maintainable?- held- yes-whether a widow is
divested of her right to get compensation for the
death of her husband on her remarrying during
pendency of claim petition? Held- no.

2008ACJ 816( MP), 2003 ACJ 542(MP), 2004 ACJ
1467(MP) 1992 ACJ 1048 (Raj), 2011 ACJ 1625
(Gau), 2013 ACJ 1679 (J & K). 2014 ACJ 950
(AP).
3 - Dependants- death of unmarried woman- living
separately from the claimant- held claimant was not
dependent and not entitled for compensation but
entitled to get 50000 u/s 140 of the Act
2012 ACJ 155- 2007 ACJ 1279 SC followed
4 - Meaning of legal representative is given u/s 2(11)
of CPC- words used u/s 166 of MV Act are legal
representative and not Dependants- therefore,
includes earning wife and parents also- further
held that wife is entitled for compensation, till
the date of her remarriage.
2012 ACJ 1230 (Mad)- considered ratios of SC,
reported in 1989 (2) SCC (Supp) 275- Banco v/s
Nalini Bai Naique and 1987 ACJ 561 (SC)- GSRTS
v/s Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai – 2013 ACJ 99 (AP)
5 - Legal representative- live in relationship- second
wife- whether she is entitled for compensation,
when first wife is living? - Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2586 (AP). - 2011 (1) SCC 141 (live in
relationship- u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Man is
liable to pay maintenance). Also 2016 ACJ
79(Kar)
6 - Death of mother during pendency of claim petition-
father of the deceased not considered as dependent-
whether proper?- Held- No- claim petition ought to
have been decided on the basis that mother of the
deceased was alive on the date of accident, as
right to sue accrued on date of accident.
2013 ACJ 19 (Del)
7 - Whether on the basis of succession certificate,
brother's son of deceased gets right to file an
application under the Act for getting compensation-
Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1176 (J&K).

7A - Whether on the natural death of the one of the
joint claimants, succession certificate is required
to produced so as to enable Tribunal to pass an
order of disbursement of the awarded amount,
falling in the share of deceased claimant?- Held-
No.
2014 ACJ 891 (MP).
7B - To get awarded amount, L.R. Are not required to get
succession certificate- SC judgment in the case of
Rukhsana v/s Nazrunnisa, 2000 (9) SCC 240 followe.
2014 ACJ 2501 (Raj)
8 - Compensation cannot be denied to the members of the
family of the sole breadwinner.
1987 ACJ 561 (SC) -GSRTC v/s Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai. See also 2013 ACJ 2793 (Mad)- UII
Com. v/s Poongavanam.
9 - Legal representative- Adopted daughter- whether
said to LR? -Held- Yes-
2013 ACJ 2708 (P&H)
10 - Legal representative- death of member of a
registered charitable society who renounced the
world- whether, claim petition by society is
2014 ACJ 667 (SC) (FB) – Montford Brothers v/s
UII Com.
11 - Remarriage of Widow- Whether dis-entitled her to
get compensation?- Held No.
2014 ACJ 950 (AP).
12 - Legal representative and legal heirs- u/s 166
words Legal representative are use whereas, u/s
163-A words Legal heirs are used. Therefore,
Legal representative of deceased is not entitled to
claim compensation u/s163-A of the Act.
2014 ACJ 1492 (Ker)- Kadeeja v/s Managing
Director, KSRTC dated 18.10.2013.

13 - Claim petition filed by the children of deceased
from the first marriage on the ground that claim
petition filed by the second wife is allowed-
whether proper?- Held- Yes. - As amount of
compassion received by the L.R. Of deceased deemd
to be hold by him on behalf of all L.R.- children
of deceased from the first marriage are directed to
file a suit for recovery.
2014 ACJ 2504(All)
14 - Legal representative- live in relationship- second
wife- whether she is entitled for compensation,
when first wife is living? - Held- Yes.
2012 ACJ 2586 (AP). - 2011 (1) SCC 141 (live in
in relationship- u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Man is
liable to pay maintenance).
2007 (7) SCJ 467- Hafizun Begum v/s Md.
Ikram Heque.
16 - Married sons and daughters can be considered as
dependents? And are entitled for compensation?-
Held- Yes.
2015 ACJ 1180 (P&H). - 1987 ACJ 561 (SC) –
GSRTC v/s Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai followed.
17 - Agent of victim – Whether owner can prefer claim
petition without filing authority letter u/s 166
(1) (d) of the M V Act on behalf of the
victim/deceased? Held – No.
2015 ACJ 1688 (Gau)
18 - Mother of the deceased died after three year of
filing of the claim petition – her LR moved an
pallication to be joined as LR of mother of the
deceased- whether such application can be allowed?-
Held- Yes.
2016 ACJ 68 (Ker)
HOME
7. Limitation:-
1. limitation – claim petition filed in 2005, whereas
accident occurred in the year 1990- whether claim
petition is time barred?- held- no
2011 ACJ 1585 (Jark)
2 - Limitation- U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its
deletion- accident occurred prior to the said
deletion- claim petition filed after deletion and
since years after the accident - whether claim
petition is maintainabile? - Held- Yes.
2015 ACJ 221 (Chh)
HOME
8. Workmen Compensation Act:-
1 - Receipt of compensation by claimant under WC Act,
without there being any application by claimant
under the WC Act - whether claimant is at liberty
to file an application u/s 166 and/ or 163A of MV
Act? - held- yes- there is no bar for claimant to
file an application u/s 163A of MV Act as he has
not made any application under WC Act
2004 ACJ 934 (SC) , 2003 ACJ 1434 (P&H), 2011
ACJ 1786 (KAR)
2 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147, 149, 166, 167,
173 - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - S. 3 -
appeal against the order of High Court directing
appellant to satisfy whole award - motor accident
case - fatal - third party risk involved -
liability of vehicle owner and insurer to be
decided - applicability of Workmen's Compensation
Act - accident of truck - driver died on the spot -
heirs of deceased contended that truck was 15 years
old and was not in good condition and was not well
maintained - claim for compensation - truck owner
denied his fault on the ground that driver was
drunk at the time of the accident - Tribunal
dismissed claim petition holding fault of driver
for the accident - claimants preferred appeal
before High Court - High Court observed that

accident took place because the arm bolt of the
truck broke and not due to the fault of driver -
awarded Rs. 2,10,000/- with 10% interest as a
compensation and directed appellant to satisfy
whole award - appellant company defended itself on
the ground that as per S. 147 and 149 of the Motor
Vehicles Act is concerned, liability of the insurer
is restricted up to the limit provided by W.C. Act
- insurer-appellant preferred this leave petition -
whether appellant insurance company is liable to
pay the entire compensation to claimant or its
liability is restricted to the limit prescribed in
W.C. Act – held -yes- further held that the
insurance policy was for 'Act Liability' and so the
liability of appellant would not be unlimited but
would be limited as per W.C. Act - appellant
directed to pay claim amount up to the extent
prescribed in W.C. Act and owner of truck is
directed to pay remaining claim amount
2005(6) SCC 172- N.I.C v/s Prembai Patel
3 - Driver hit his truck against tree- IC raised
objection that its liability is restricted to
liability under the W.C Act- whether sustainable-
held – No- Clause of policy cannot override
statutory provisions of Section 167, which gives
option to claimant to opt any of the remedy
provided under the Act
2012 ACJ 23 – 2006 ACJ 528 SC followed
4 - Claim petition under M.V. Act after getting
compensation under the W.C. Act- whether
maintainable- held- yes- deceased died due to
injuries sustained by chassis of the bus owned by
the corporation of which deceased was the employee-
as deceased died in motor accident – claim
petition under M.V. Act also, maintainable
2012 ACJ 239- 2003 ACJ 1759 (Guj) followed
5 - Doctrine of election- whether claimant can claim
compensation u/s 168 of the Act when he has already
received some amount under the WC Act? - Held- No.
2012 ACJ 2069 – Sc judgment followed.

6 - W.C. Act- Employer suo motu paid compensation to
the L.R of deceased u/s 8 of the W.C. Act.- claim
petition preferred earlier by the L.R. Of deceased-
whether I.C. Can claim that amount paid under the
W.C. Act may be deducted from the amount of
compensation which may be awarded u/s 166 7 168 of
M.V. Act?- Held- No. - Since compensation is paid
u/s 8 of the W.C. Act, Section 8 and L.R. Of
deceased had not preferred any application u/s 10
of the W.C. Act, argument of I.C. Is turned down.
2013 ACJ 709.
7 - Whether Tribunal can award compensation on the
basis of provisions contained under the W.C. Act? -
Held -No.
2012 ACJ 2251 (Mad)
8 - I.C is liable to pay entire amount of compensation
and not only under Liability of W.C. Act.
2013 ACJ 2205 (Del).
9 - Choice of forum – IC deposited compensation with
commissioner -whether in such situation claimants
are precluded from making any claim petition under
the MV Act?- Held- No.
2015 ACJ 1429 (P&H)
HOME
9. Negligence:-
1 - Negligence- Apex court observed that HC was not
cognizant of the principle that in road accident
claim, strict principles of proof as required in
criminal case are not attracted- once eye witness who
has taken the claimant to the road accident for
treatment, immediately after the accident has deposed
in favour of claimant, HC was not right in holding
that accident is not proved and claimant is not
entitled for any compensation- SC allowed claim
petition of injured claimant
2011 ACJ 1613 (SC)
2 - Confessional statement made by driver of the offending
vehicle, before the trial court- whether, in such

situation, claimant is required to prove the
negligence of the offending vehicle- held- no
2011 ACJ 2548, 2011 ACJ 2568
3 - Composite negligence- non-joinder of joint tortfeasor-
accident occurred between two vehicles- claimant
impleaded only one vehicle- effect of- whether the
tortfeasor impleaded can seek exclusion of liability
on the ground that other tortfeasor has not been
joined?- Held- No- Third party has a choice of action
against any of the tortfeasor – but in such situation,
Tribunal's is duty bound to either direct the claimant
to join the other tortfeasor or pass the award against
the impleaded tortfeasor, leaving it open for him to
take independent action against other tortfeasor for
apportionment and recovery.
2012 ACJ 1103 (P&H), 2015 ACJ 2698 (Guj),2015 ACJ
2690 (All)
4 - Is it incumbent upon the claimants to prove negligence
of the offending vehicle? Held -Yes- if they fail to
do so, claim petition preferred u/s 166 cannot be
allowed.
2012 ACJ 1305 (SC) Surendra Kumar Arora v/s Dr.
Manoj Bisla. 2016 ACJ 163 (Ass)
5 - Negligence- contributory negligence- claimant
travelling on rooftop- such travelling by claimant is
negligent but unless negligent act contributes to the
accident- claimant cannot be held negligent.
2012 ACJ 1968.
6 - Collision between Tanker and Jeep- rash and negligent
driving of tanker- owner and driver of jeep not
joined- whether claim petition can be dismissed on
that ground?- Held- No- owner and driver of jeep not
necessary party.
2012 AAC 2479(All)
7 - Pedestrian under the influence of liquor- hit by truck
from behind- whether such pedestrian can he held
liable for such accident- Held- No.
2012 ACJ 2358 (MP).
8 - Negligence- Finding with respect to negligence-
whether can be arrived at on the basis of filling of

FIR and Chargesheet? - Held- No.
2012 AAC 2701 (Del) and 2012 AAC 2934 (MP)- SC
judgments followed.
9 - Contributory negligence- Child- Child cannot be held
negligent in the accident.
2013 ACJ 673. But see 2015 ACJ 2124 (P&H).
10- Negligence- Conviction in the criminal Court- whether
findings of the Criminal Court is binding on the
Claims Tribunal- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1042.
11- Contributory Negligent- Non possession of driving
licence- whether falls under it? -Held – No – it is
not a case of contributory negligence.- difference
between contributory and composite negligence pointed
out.
2013 ACJ 1297 (Pat).
12- Negligence- While reversing the vehicle- Guideline.
2013 ACJ 1357 (Chh)
13- Unmanned level crossing- accident by Train- whether
Rail authority is liable to pay compensation- Held-
Yes.
2013 ACJ 1653.
14- Accident occurred without negligence of the driver- No
other vehicle involved- Accident occurred because
truck rolled down on the slope- Whether IC is liable?
-Held Yes.
2013 ACJ 1993 (Chh)
15- Negligence- Helmet- not wearing of- deceased a pillion
rider, was not wearing helmet and IC took objection
that as deceased was not wearing held as per the
traffic rules, he contributed in the accident and,
therefore, IC may be exonerated- whether tenable?-
Held- No.
2013 ACJ 2038 (Del). 2014 ACJ 869 (P&H)
16- It is no doubt true that finding of Criminal Court is
not binding on the Tribunal but if claimant has
admitted his negligence in Criminal Proceeding, same
is binding on the Tribunal.
2013 ACJ 2257 (Del)
17- Negligence- Contributory negligence- driving under the

influence of the Alcohol- Guidelines for assessment of
negligence.
2013 ACJ 2349 (Chh)
18- Res judicate- negligence- when findings giving in the
other case is not binding? - Principles stated.
2013 ACJ 2283 (MP)
19- 163-A- When it is proved that claimant/deceased
himself was negligent in causing the accident- IC is
not liable to pay compensation.
Nandanan
20- Under the influence of liquor/alcohol - Negligence-
guidelines for consideration.
2013 ACJ 2712 (SC) – Dulcina Fernandes v/s
Joaquim Xavier.
21- Composite & contributory negligence- Whether Tribunal
is required to decide quantum of negligence in a case
where claimant is third partly- Held -No.- Further
held that claim is not required to join both the
tortfeasors.
2014 ACJ 704 (SC) (FB) Pawan Kumar v/s Harkishan
Dass Mohan.
22- Contributory negligence- Minor- No specific evidence
that accident had taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of minor- Only because minor was not
having licence to pay any vehicle and was prohibited
by law, it does not mean that minor contributed in the
accident. Therefore, in absence of cogent evident it
cannot be held that it was a case of contributory
negligence.
2014 ACJ 1012 (SC) – Meera Devi v/s HSRTC
23- 163-A- When it is proved that claimant/deceased
himself was negligent in causing the accident- IC is
Nandanan
24- Pay and recover- Accident by negligent driving of
Minor- Liability of Financier – order of pay and

recover only against owner/financier and not against
minor
2014 ACJ 660 (Del), IC is held liable to pay and
recover as same is liable under the contractual
liability. 2014 ACJ 2298 (Del)
25- Contributory negligence- Minor- No specific evidence
that accident had taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of minor- Only because minor was not
having licence to pay any vehicle and was prohibited
by law, it does not mean that minor contributed in the
accident. Therefore, in absence of cogent evident it
cannot be held that it was a case of contributory
negligence.
2014 ACJ 1012 (SC) – Meera Devi v/s HSRTC, 2016
ACJ 777 (All)
26- Negligence- Criminal Trial- Acquittal- whether order
of criminal court is binding on the Tribunal- Held-
No.
2014 ACJ 1174, 2016 ACJ 402 (P&H)
27- IC seeks to avoid it liability on the ground that ‘A’
was driving the vehicle- claimant claimed that vehicle
was being driven by ‘B’- IC sought reliance on
statement made u/s 161 of Cr.P.C and chargesheet- same
are not substantive piece of evidence- even IC has
failed to prove the contents of the same – no other
evidence was produced by IC to point out that
particular person was plying the vehicle- IC held
liable
2011 ACJ 2213 (ALL), 2016 ACJ 821 (P&H)
28- Res ipsa loquitur – tyre burst – Whether driver of the
offending vehicle can be held responsible?- Held –
Yes.
2016 ACJ 736 (P&H)
HOME

10. Calculation of compensation-Quantum:-
1 - Whether deduction towards EPF and GIS be made in
calculating income of the deceased?- held- no
2011 ACJ 1441(SC), 2014 ACJ 1416 (SC) (FB) –
Manasvi Jain v/s Delhi Transport Corporation.,
2014 ACJ 1430 (SC) (FB) – Ramilaben Chnubhai
Parmar v/s Nii Com.
2 - Pregnant woman suffered injury which led to death of
child in the womb - foetus- Rs 2 lacs awarded for the
death of the child in the womb - 2005 ACJ 69 (KAR),
2067 ACJ 2067 (MP), 2011 ACJ 2400 (MAD), 2011 ACJ 2432
(SC), 2014 ACJ 2509 (P&H), Kusuma's case, 2011 ACJ
2432(SC) - SC judgment followed
3 - Quantum- deceased last year student of B. Tech-relying
upon several Supreme Court decisions, income taken as
Rs 12K per month- 10% deducted as he was in the final
year of B.Tech- RS 10,800/- as monthly income
considered
2011 ACJ 2403 (AP), 2011 ACJ 2082(P&H), 2011 ACJ
1702(AP)
4 - Coolie- suffered loss of hand- amputation of hand- SC
held it to be case of 100% functional disablement-
2011 ACJ 2436 (SC)
5 - House wife- quantum- Rs 3,000/- p/m awarded
2011 ACJ 1670 (DEL), Lata Wadhwa, reported in
2001 ACJ 1735(SC)
In case of Arun Kumar Agrawal, reported in
2010(9) SCC 218, Apex Court has awarded
compensation taking monthly income of wife at Rs.
5,000/- p/m.
6 - Principle of assessment of quantum- determination of
income- whether HRA, CCA and MA, paid by employer
should be taken in to consideration – held- yes-
2011 ACJ 1441 (SC)
7 - Multiplier- unmarried son- proper multiplier- average
age of parents to be considered
2011 (7) SCC 65= 2011 ACJ 1990 (SC)= 2011 (3) SCC
(Civil) 529- Shyam Singh but differing views in
P.S. Somnathan v/s Dist. Insurance Officer,
reported in 2011 ACJ 737 and Amrit Bhanu Shali

v/s NI Com., reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 and
Saktidevi v/s NI Com, reported in 2010 (14) SCC
575 = 2012 (1) SCC (Civ) 766
8 - Loss of dependency- deceased lady aged 31- claimant
husband, not financially dependent on the deceased-
whether he is entitled for compensation for loss of
‘dependency’ – held- no
2011 ACJ 1734 (DEL)
But in case of Arun Kumar Agrawal, reported
in 2010(9) SCC, Apex Court has awarded
compensation taking monthly income of wife at Rs.
50000 p/a.
9 - Deceased aged 57- multiplier of 9 awarded by SC-
relying on Sarla Verma
10 - Tribunal deducted 1/3 from the income of decease-
contention of IC that as deceased was unmarried, 50%
should have been deducted- whether Tribunal erred in
deducting only 1/3 amount as personal expenditure?-
held – no –
2009 ACJ 2359(SC), 2004 ACJ 699 (SC), 2006 ACJ
1058 (SC), 2008 ACJ 1357(SC), 2009 ACJ 1619 (SC)
11- Deduction in case of death of bachelor- whether it
should be 2/3 or 1/3? – held 1/3 deduction is just and
proper- 2009 ACJ 2359(SC)- Deo Patodi followed
2011 ACJ 2518
12- U/s 168- compensation- statutory provisions clearly
indicates that compensation must be just and it cannot
be a bonanza, not a source of profit but the same
should not be a pittance-
1999 ACJ 10 (SC)
13- Foreign citizen- pound or dollar- rate of exchange-
the rate prevailing on the date of award should be
granted- 2002 ACJ 1441 (SC) – Patricia Jean Mahajan
followed
2011 ACJ 2677,
But also see 2016 ACJ 1262 (Ker)
14- Receipt of income in foreign currency- Pound- Dollar-
amount of compensation is required to be awarded at
prevalent rate of conversion- 2012 ACJ 349

15- Whether the dependents of agriculturist is entitled
for prospective income- Held- Yes-
2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) – Santosh Devi
16- Compensation- determination of – death of the owner of
transport company- was managing the company- can be
managed by the manager- in fact, manager was appointed
and paid Rs.10,000- SC awarded compensation on that
basis and not on the basis of actual income of the
deceased.
2012 (3) SCC 613 – Yogesh Devi.
17- SC granted 100% increase in the actual income of the
deceased and deducted only 1/10 amount as personal
expenditure.
2012 ACJ 2131 (SC) -N.I. A. Com. v/s Dipali.
18- No proof of income- In such case, compensation should
be assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable at
relevant time.
2012 ACJ 28 (SC)- Govind Yadav. -When
deceased was working in the unorganized sector,
his LR cannot be compeled to produce proof with
respect to income of deceased. In such a
situation, minimum wages shall be taken into
consideration.
Sanjay Kumar v/s Ashok Kumar, 2014(5) SCC 330.
19- Future income in the case where age of deceased is
more than 50? - whether can be considered?- Held- yes
but only in exceptional cases.- K.R. Madhusudhan v/s
Administrative Officer, 2011 ACJ 743
20- Best example of the case where injured was a
government servant and met with accident but because
of accident he did not suffer any salary loss- good
observations of House of Lords, reported in 1912 AC
496.
2013 ACJ 79 – para 20.,
In Lt. Colonel Anoop malhotra v/s Chhatar
Singh, 2014 ACJ 1991 (Raj), a case of Lt. Colonel
who after the accident declared unfit to be Lt.
Colonel and was posted as Colonel in Civil Wings.
Inspite of the fact that his income did not
decrease, compensation under the other heads

allowed.
21- Government servant- injury case- what should be the
basis for computation of amount of compensation?-
Whether multiplier of 5 would be applied or 25% income
should be considered? - Two Views – First says that
multiplier of 5 would be applicable- Dahyabhai Parmar
v/s Ramavtar sharam, reported in 2006 (4) GLR 2844 and
case reported in 1993 (2) GLR 1046- whereas second
view says that 25% of the salary income should be
considered- Mohanbhai Gemabhai v/s. Balubhai
Savjibhai, reported in 1993(1) GLR 249 and 2013 ACJ 79
– para 20.
22- In the fatal accident cases Rupees One lac may be
granted under the head of consortium and loss of
estate, each and Rupees 25K be given under the head of
funeral expenditure.
2013 ACJ 1403 (SC – FB) Rajesh v/s Rajinder
Singh. Followed also in Kalpanaraj v/s TSRTC,
2014 ACJ 1388 (SC). Also followed in Kala Devi
v/s Bhagwan Das Chauhan, 2014 ACJ 2875 (SC). For
decision of quantum matter is referred to larger
bench in case of Shashikala v/s Gangalakshmamma,
2015 ACJ 1239 (SC).
Hon'ble Three Judges of (FB) Supreme Court
in the case of Munna Lal Jain v/s Vipin kumar
Sharma, reported in 2015 ACJ 1985 has held that
LR self employed (Pandit) deceased are entitled
for compensation calculated on the basis of
future prospect. - 2015 ACJ 1985.
23- In the case of Jiju Kuruwila v/s Kunjujamma Mohan,
2013 ACJ 2141 (SC), it is held that each child of the
deceased is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- under the head
of loss of love and affection.
24- Death of Agriculturist- Determination of compensation-
Guideline given.
2013 ACJ 1481
25- Accident of Film/TV actress- Guideline for
compensation and medical bills
2013 ACJ 2161 (SC) – Rekha Jain v/s N.I.Com.
26- Fatal Accident- Business man- Claimants did not

adduced any evidence with respect to the future income
of the claimant. - Not entitled for it.
2013 ACJ 2269 (Ori)
27- Principle for assessment of compensation in the case
where minor has sustained disability- guideline.
2013 ACJ 2445 (SC) – Mallikarjun v/s Division
Manager.
28- Student of Engineering- Fatal- SC assessed compassion
to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs.
2013 ACJ 2860 (SC) - Radhakrishna v/s Gokul
29- Rs.1,25,000/- is awarded under the head of PSS and
Future Attendance Charges.
2014 ACJ 23 (Guj) – Shaileshkmar Natwarji Thakore
30- Paraplegia- in such case disability shall be
considered as 100%.
2014 ACJ 107 (P&H),2014 ACJ 595 (HP)
31- Unborn Child- death of- amount of compensation-
guidelines.
2014 ACJ 353(Mad).
32- Injury to Advocate- Calculation of loss of Income.
2014 ACJ 617 (SC) – Manjegowda, 2014 ACJ 653 (SC)
Sanjay Kumar v/s Ashok Kumar
33- Quantum of – assessment of loss of Leave in the case
of government servant- principles laid down.
2014 ACJ 1090
34- Quantum – Assessment in the fatal case - Ratio laid
down in the case of Rajesh v/s Rajbir 2013 ACJ 1403
(SC) qua consortium, funeral expenditure etc is
followed – 2014 ACJ 1261 (SC) - Savita v/s Bindar
Singh. Also see 2014 ACJ 1565 (SC) – Anjani Singh v/s
Salauddin.
35- Whether 1/3 amount under the head of personal
expenditure can be deducted from the notional income
(of Rs.3,000/-) of a housewife?- Held- No. Good
discussion.
2104 ACJ 1817
36- Public Document- Income Tax Certificate issued by C.A.
(Chartered Accountant) - whether same is admissible in
evidence as same is public document?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 2348 (Sikkim)

37- Interest –income tax- TDS- guideline
2007 ACJ 1897 (GUJ)
Above referred guideline shall now not be
made applicable as there is an amendment in the
Income Tax Act, Section 194-A(3)(ix).
2016 ACJ 1231 (Chh)
38- Income Tax- Deduction from the amount of compensation-
interest received on the awarded amount of
compensation, amounting to more than 50,000/- Tribunal
can deduct TDS on the said amount of accumulated
interest?- Held- No- Tribunal can deduct TDS only if
the amount of interest for the financial year payable
to each claimant exceeds Rs. 50000/- 2012 ACJ 1157
(MP).
In the year 2013, amendment came to made in
Section 169 Income Tax Act, and now same is made
taxable.
39- Claimants are entitled for entire pay package, which
is for the benefit of the family is to be taken into
consideration.
2008 ACJ 614 (SC)- Indira Srivastava
2009 ACJ 2161 (SC)- Saroj
40- M.V. Act- C.P.C.1908, u/s 2- illegitimate minor son is
entitled to get any amount of compensation? -Held-
Yes.
2012 ACJ 2322 (Chh).
41- Interest- Penal interest- whether imposition of higher
rate interest with retrospective effect is legal? -
Held- No. - If awarded amount is not deposited with in
time allowed, reasonable enhanced rate of interest may
be imposed, payable from the date till the date of
payment but not retrospectively.
2012 ACJ 2660. SC Judgments followed.
42- Loss of academic year- what should be amount of
compensation- Held- Rs.50,000/-.2012 AAC 3126.
43- Death of house wife- quantum should be decided on the
basis of notional income i.e. 3,000/- p.m.- 1/3 amount
is not required to be deducted as notional income is
assessed.
2013 ACJ 453 (Del)- SC judgments followed.

43- Allowances like D.A., contribution of employer towards
P.F etc are part and parcel of the income of deceased?
- held- yes.
2013 ACJ 504 (Del), 2013 ACJ 1441 (SC) – Vimal
Kumar v/s Kishore Dan.
44– Income certificate issued by Block Development officer
– is public document and can be relied upon without
calling upon BDO in the witness box.
2015 ACJ 2575 (Sik)
HOME
11. Driving Licence:-

1- Whether the verification report of driving licence
issued by District Transport Officer is a public
document and can be relied upon?- held- no- unapproved
verification report obtained by a private person
cannot be treated as public document
2011 ACJ 2138 (DEL)
2- IC took defense that driver was not holding the valid
licence to drive- IC did not examine any witness in
this regard- mere reliance on the exhibited driving
licence- marking of exhibit does not dispense with the
proof of document- IC held liable
AIR 1971 SC 1865, 2011 ACJ 1606 ((P&H)
3- Whether IC is liable even if the driver had forged
driving licence?- held- yes-mere fact of licence being
forged is not enough to absolve the IC from liability
2004 ACJ 1 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1611 (HP)
4- Driving licence- Tribunal exonerated IC, relying upon
the photo copy of the it- none of the parties have
proved the contents of photocopy of the licence-
whether Tribunal erred in exonerating IC?- held- yes-
as photocopy of licence was not duly proved
2011 ACJ 1461 (MP), 2011 ACJ 1606 (P&H ) – 1971
SC 1865 relied upon
5- Whether IC is liable even if the driver had forged
driving licence?- held- yes-mere fact of licence being
forged is not enough to absolve the IC from liability
2004 ACJ 1 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1611 (HP)

6- Driving licence- DL issued on 7.8.79- renewed for the
period between 18.11.89 to 17.11.92- again renewed for
the period between 27.7.95 to 17.11.98- accident
occurred on 30.9.94- whether IC can avoid its
liability on the ground that driver was not having
valid and effective DL on the date of accident?- held-
no- word ‘effective licence’ used u/s 3 of Act, can’t
be imported to section 149(2)- breaks in validity or
tenure of DL does not attract provisions for
disqualification of the driver to get DL- IC held
liable
2011 ACJ 2337 (ALL)
7- DL- IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that
DL was renewed by RTO clerk and not by authorized
officer of RTO- IC failed to examined the responsible
officer of RTO to prove its case- whether IC is
liable- held- yes
2011 ACJ 2385 (J&K)
8- Following principles/guideline laid down by Full Bench
of SC in Para no. 108 in the case of N.I. Com. v/s
Swaran Singh, reported in 2004 (1) JT 109 = 2004 (1)
GLH 691 (SC)- (also see Point No- 103)
(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
providing compulsory insurance of vehicles
against third-party risks is a social welfare
legislation to extend relief by compensation to
victims of accidents caused by use of motor
vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance
coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount
object and the provisions of the Act have to be
so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a
claim petition filed u/s. 163A or Sec. 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , inter alia, in terms
of Sec. 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g.
disqualification of the driver or invalid driving
licence of the driver, as contained in sub-sec.
(2)(a)(ii) of Sec. 149, has to be proved to have
been committed by the insured for avoiding

liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or
invalid driving licence or disqualification of
the driver for driving at the relevant time, are
not in themselves defences available to the
insurer against either the insured or the third
parties. To avoid its liability towards the
insured, the insurer has to prove that the
insured was guilty of negligence and failed to
exercise reasonable care in the matter of
fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding
use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one
who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant
time.
(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to
avoid their liability must not only establish the
available defence(s) raised in the said
proceedings but must also establish "breach" on
the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden
of proof wherefore would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how
the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as
the same would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on
the part of the insured concerning the policy
condition regarding holding of a valid licence by
the driver or his qualification to drive during
the relevant period, the insurer would not be
allowed to avoid its liability towards the
insured unless the said breach or breaches on the
condition of driving licence is/are so
fundamental as are found to have contributed to
the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in
interpreting the policy conditions would apply
"the rule of main purpose" and the concept of
"fundamental breach" to allow defences available
to the insurer u/s. 149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken
reasonable care to find out as to whether the
driving licence produced by the driver (a fake

one or otherwise), does not fulfill the
requirements of law or not will have to be
determined in each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven
by a person having a learner's licence, the
insurance companies would be liable to satisfy
the decree.
(ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted u/s. 165 read
with Sec. 168 is empowered to adjudicate all
claims in respect of the accidents involving
death or of bodily injury or damage to property
of third party arising in use of motor vehicle.
The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted
to decide the claims inter se between claimant or
claimants on one side and insured, insurer and
driver on the other (this view is followed in the
case of KUSUM- see point no- 101). In the course
of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to
decide the availability of defence or defences to
the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the
power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter
se between the insurer and the insured. The
decision rendered on the claims and disputes
inter se between the insurer and insured in the
course of adjudication of claim for compensation
by the claimants and the award made thereon is
enforceable and executable in the same manner as
provided in Sec. 174 of the Act for enforcement
and execution of the award in favour of the
claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act
the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the
insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 149(2)
read with sub-sec. (7), as interpreted by this
Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the
insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured
for the compensation and other amounts which it
has been compelled to pay to the third party
under the award of the Tribunal. Such

determination of claim by the Tribunal will be
enforceable and the money found due to the
insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a
certificate issued by the Tribunal to the
Collector in the same manner u/s. 174 of the Act
as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will
be issued for the recovery as arrears of land
revenue only if, as required by sub-sec. (3) of
Sec. 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit
the amount awarded in favour of the insurer
within thirty days from the date of announcement
of the award by the Tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-sec. (4) with the
proviso thereunder and sub-sec. (5) which are
intended to cover specified contingencies
mentioned therein to enable the insurer to
recover the amount paid under the contract of
insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken
recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to
claims and defences of the insurer against the
insured by relegating them to the remedy before
regular Court in cases where on given facts and
circumstances adjudication of their claims inter
se might delay the adjudication of the claims of
the victims".
9- The effect of fake license has to be considered in
the light of what has been stated by the Hon’ Supreme
Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla V/s. Kamla
and Ors., 2001 4 JT 235. Once the license is a fake
one the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake
license. It was observed in Kamla's case (supra) as
follows:
"12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that
a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit
stripped off merely on account of some officer
renewing the same with or without knowing it to
be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers
any Licensing Authority to "renew a driving
licence issued under the provisions of this Act
with effect from the date of its expiry". No

Licensing Authority has the power to renew a fake
licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made
cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any
counterfeit document showing that it contains a
purported order of a statutory authority would
ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that
other persons including some statutory
authorities would have acted on the document
unwittingly on the assumption that it is
genuine".
10- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 15, 149 - liability of
insurance company - Tribunal opined that respondent-
insurance company was not liable to indemnify insured
- no valid and effective driving licence - nor renewal
of driving licence - whether to be considered as
violation of terms of insurance policy - held, it was
found that driver of vehicle was not having valid
licence on date of accident as licence was not renewed
within thirty days of its expiry - renewal after 30
days will have no retrospective effect - there is a
breach of condition of contract - insurance company
will have no liability in present case - order of
Tribunal as well as High Court upheld
2008(8) SCC 165 –Ram Babu Tiwari
11- (A)- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 149(1) - motor
accident claim - liability of insurer - third party
risk - Tribunal held that accident was due to rash and
negligent driving of the scooter by driver and granted
Rs. 3,01,500 as compensation with interest at 9% per
annum in favour of the claimants and against the
second respondent-owner of the scooter and appellant-
insurance company - whether insurance company could be
held liable to pay the amount of compensation for the
default of the scooterist who was not holding licence
for driving two wheeler scooter but had driving
licence of different class of vehicle in terms of S.
10 of the Act - held, where the insurers relying upon
the provisions of violation of law by the assured,
take an exception to pay the assured or a third party,
they must prove a willful violation of the law by the

assured - provisions of sub-sec. (4) and (5) of S. 149
of the Act may be considered as to the liability of
the insurer to satisfy the decree at the first
instance - liability of the insurer to satisfy the
decree passed in favour of a third party is also
statutory.
11-(B)-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 10(2) - motor

accident claim - liability of insurer - appellant
insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the
amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause
of death in road accident which had occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of scooterist who
admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive
the vehicle on the day of accident - scooterist was
possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was
driving totally different class of vehicle which act
of his is in violation of S. 10(2) of the Act
2008(12) SCC 385 – Zahirunisha
12- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 149 - Constitution of
India - Art. 136 - extent of liability of insurer -
motor vehicle accident caused by driver possessing
fake license at relevant time - Tribunal rejecting the
insurer's liability - validity - driver, brother of
owner of said vehicle - held, holding of fake license
not by itself absolves insurer of its liability - but
insurer has to prove that owner of vehicle was aware
of fact that license was fake and still permitted
driver to drive - on facts, insurer liability to pay
compensation contradicted - thus, balance amount of
claimant and amount already paid by insurer to
claimants to be recovered from owner and driver of
vehicle
2008 (3) SCC 193- Prem Kumari v/s Prahlad Dev
13- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 149(2)(a)(ii) - motor
accident - liability of insurer - in claim petition,
Tribunal held that Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation - licence of driver was not issued by a
competent authority - contention of insurer that by
employing a driver with invalid driving licence owner

insured has breached the condition of S. 149(2)(a)(ii)
- held, owner had satisfied himself that the driver
had a licence and was driving completely there was no
breach of S. 149(2)(a)(ii) - if the driver produces a
driving licence, which on the fact of it looks
genuine, owner is not expected to find out whether the
licence has in fact been issued by a competent
authority or not - therefore, insurance company would
not be absolved of its liability - in order to avoid
its liability, insurer has to prove that the insured
was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise
reasonable case in the matter of fulfilling the
condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a
duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified
to drive at the relevant time
Lal Chand v/s O.I.Com -2006(7) SCC 318
14- (A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - u/s. 2(10) 3-9, 10, 14-
16, 19-21, 23, 27, 147, 149, 163A, 165, 166 and 168 -
Liability of insurer - Breach of condition of
insurance contract - Absence, fake or invalid driving
licence of driver - Disqualification of driver - Case
Law analyzed - Principles stated - Held that
provisions of compulsory insurance against third party
risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief
of compensation to victims of accidents - Mere
absence, fake or invalid driving licence or
disqualification of the driver are not in themselves
the defences available to the insurer - The insurer
has to prove negligence and breach of policy
conditions - The burden of proof would be on the
insurer - Even when the insurer proves such breach of
policy conditions in above circumstances, insurer will
have to prove that such breach was so fundamental that
it was responsible for cause of accident, otherwise,
insurer will be liable - If the driver has Learner's
licence, insurer would be liable.
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - u/s. 165, 149(2), 168,
174 - The Tribunal in interpreting the policy
conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and
concept of "fundamental breach" to allow the defences

available to the insurer - Further held that powers of
Tribunal are not restricted to only decide claims
between claimants and insured or insurer and/or
driver, it has also powers to decide the disputes
between insured and insurer and when such dispute is
decided, it would be executable u/S. 174 as it applies
to claimants - No separate proceedings are required -
Even when insurer is held not liable, it will satisfy
the award in favour of claimants and can recover from
the insured u/S. 174 of the Act.-
2004(1) GLH 691(SC)- N.I.A. Com v/s Swaran Singh.
15- Contention that driver of offending vehicle was not
holding valid licence at the time of accident and same
was renewed after the date of accident- whether IC is
liable- Held- yes
2011 ACJ 2468- 2004 ACJ -1 and 2001 ACJ 843
( both SC) followed.
16- U/s 149(2) (a) (ii) and 149 (4)- driving licence-
policy- willful breach- burden of proof- on whom- Held
on IC- it is for the IC to prove that driver did not
hold the DL to drive the class of vehicle or DL was
fake and breach was conscious and willful on the part
of insured to avoid its liability.
2012 ACJ 1268 (Del). Various SC decisions
referred to.
17- Driving licence- DL expired before the date of
accident and renewed thereafter- clause in police
provides that a person who holds or has held and not
been disqualified from holding an effective driving
licence is entitled to drive vehicle- whether IC is
liable in such case- Held- yes
2012 ACJ 1566 (P & H)
18- DL- driver was not holding valid DL at the time of
accident- owner not examined by IC- Whether IC can be
held liable- Held- yes. Swaran Singh followed.
2012 ACJ 1891, 2012 ACJ 1946
19- Non-possession of valid licence by scooter rider,
cannot be held to have contributed to accident when IC
has failed to examine the driver of offending vehicle.
2012 ACC 2635 (Del) and 2012 AAC 2895 (Mad) – SC
judgments followed.

20- Production of fake licence by driver- owner verified
it and found it genuine- whether in such case, IC can
avoid its liability-held- No.
2012 AAC 2636 (Del)
21- Liability of insurer - Deceased died in mini auto
accident - Driver of offending vehicle had licence to
drive light motor vehicle/LMV and not transport
vehicle - Breach of condition of insurance apparent on
face of record - Finding of fact arrived at that
vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods
vehicle is not correct as driving licence had been
granted for period of 20 years and not for period of 3
years - Insurer therefore directed to deposit
compensation amount with liberty to recover same from
owner and driver of vehicle.
2009 SC 2151- Angad Kol
22- Whether the order of pay and recover can be passed by
Tribunal, when there is dispute with respect to
endorsement in the licence?- Held- Yes
2013 ACJ 487, at page No. 591 (para. 17).
23- Fake driving licence- IC not liable to pay
compensation.
2013 ACJ 2129 (SC) – U.I.I.Com v/s Sujata Arora.
But Hon'ble DB of Gujarat High Court in the
case of N I A Com. Ltd. V/s Nafis Ahmed Abdul
Razaq Ansari, reported in 2015 ACJ 1955 has held
that as per the ratio laid down in the case of
Swaran Singh, IC did not examine owner or driver
of the vehicle and adduced no evidence to prove
that owner had knowledge that driver is having a
fake licence or owner failed to take reasonable
care in employing a qualified and competent
driver having valid licence – Held IC failed to
discharge above referred burden and held
responsible to pay compensation.
24- Driver of Transport Corporation- appointed only after
due process – was also given training - worked for
about 6 years - after the accident, it is found that
he was holding fake licence- whether under this
circumstances, Corporation can held liable on the

ground that it has failed it's duty to verify the
proper fact before employing such driver- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 2440 (SC)- Pepsu Road Transport Corp.
v/s N.I.Com.
25- Whether in a claim petition preferred u/s 163A or an
application u/s 140, insurer is allowed to raise
dispute qua Section 149(2) of the Act- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 1 (Ker)- relied on 2010 ACJ 1896 (Chahan
Harising Padamsing)
U/s 140 – 2014 ACJ 71 (J&K)
26- Learner's Licence- Driver of the car was having
Learner's Licence at the time of accident - he then
obtained permanent licence - Learner's Licence gets
validity from the date he got Learner's Licence- Even
no mentioning of Sign 'L' does not make any
difference.
2013 ACJ 1041
27- DL- Fake DL- IC adduced no evidence to prove that
insured committed willful default of IP- whether IC
can seek to avoid its liability-held- No. Swaran Singh
is followed- Copy is available in the folder.
2012 ACJ 2797.
28- IC took defense that driver was not holding the valid
licence to drive- IC did not examine any witness in
this regard- mere reliance on the exhibited driving
licence- marking of exhibit does not dispense with the
proof of document- IC held liable
AIR 1971 SC 1865, 2011 ACJ 1606 ((P&H)
29- Driver was holding licence to ply ‘light motor
vehicle’- drove ‘pick up jeep’ which is transport
vehicle- whether IC is liable- held- no- w.e.f
29.03.2001, no person can said to hold an effective
driving licence to drive transport vehicle if he only
holds a licence entitling him to drive ‘light motor
vehicle’- when there is no endorsement on driving
licence to drive transport vehicle, IC is not liable
2008 ACJ 721 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2115 (HP), 2014 ACJ
1128. But see 2014 ACJ 1117- Tractor- whether Non
transport vehicle or not – which kind of licence
is required.

30- Driving licence- liability of IC- ‘light motor
vehicle’- driver had licence to ply auto rickshaw and
was driving auto rickshaw delivery van, which caused
accident-Tribunal held that driver was not holding
valid licence- whether sustainable- held- no- further
held that use of vehicle for carriage of goods does
not take the auto rickshaw outside the scope and
definition of ‘light motor vehicle’, which includes a
transport vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not
exceed permissible limit of 7500kgs- lastly held that
driver was holding valid licence to drive and IC is
liable
2011 ACJ 1592 (ORI), 2014 ACJ 1037, 2014 ACJ
2148, 2014 ACJ 2259 (All), 2014 ACJ 2471 (Guj),
2014 ACJ 2703 (P&H), 2016 ACJ 1042 (AP)
31- U/S 149(2), (4) and ( 5) of MV Act- terms of IP – IC
has right to contest on all grounds including
negligence and quantum - whether valid –held- no- IC
can challenged the award only on the points available
to it u/s 149 of the Act
2011 ACJ 2253 (P&H)
32- IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground that
driver was not holding valid licence- if the licence
of the driver had lapsed that itself is not a proof
that he was disqualified from driving or he was
debarred from driving said vehicle- IC held liable- SC
judgment followed.
2012 ACJ 2025 (KAN)
33- DL – IC failed to prove that driver not having valid
licence- IC held liable to pay.
2012 AAC 3206.
34- Fake DL- report of Transport Authority was not proved
in accordance with law and excluded from evidence-
order of pay and recover passed.
2012 AAC 3344 (Del), Beer Pal v/s Arvind Kumar.
2012 AAC 3366 (Del), O.I.Com. v/s Pritam Kumar
Burman.
35- Endorsement on licence- defence of- whether can be
allowed at the stage of 140?- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 598.

36- International Driving Licence – Since such licence is
not endorsed by the Competent Licencing Authority, IC
cannot be held responsible but order of Pay and
Recover passed.
2015 ACJ 2502 (P&H).
HOME
12. Private Investigator:-
1- Whether the verification report of driving licence
issued by District Transport Officer is a public
document and can be relied upon?- held- no- unapproved
verification report obtained by a private person
cannot be treated as public document.
2011 ACJ 2138 (DEL)
2- Passenger stated before the investigator that he was
fare paying passenger- said report not produced by IC
along with reply- claimant had no opportunity to rebut
the said document- Tribunal relied upon the report of
investigator- order sustainable- held- no-as insurance
Com has failed to establish breach of policy
2011 ACJ 1688 (MP)
HOME
13. Helper- Cleaner- Coolie:-
1- Risk of cleaner engaged on goods vehicle is covered by
proviso (i) (c) of section 147(1) of MV Act? Held-
yes- insurance company is held liable to pay
compensation to the cleaner.
2005 ACJ 1323(SC), 2007 ACJ 291(AP), 2011 ACJ
1868 (AP), 2014 ACJ 1776 (Ori)
But for the case of cleaner of bus please
see- 2014 ACJ 1739 (AP) – IC held liable.
2- Helper- Act Policy- whether, helper can be treated as
passenger?- Held- No. SC judgment followed.
2012 ACJ 2554 (GAU).
3- Goods vehicle- Cleaner sustained injuries- he filed
claim petition under the M.V. Act- whether, IC is
liable?- Held- Yes but only to an extent of amount of
compensation admissible under the W.C. Act.
2013 ACJ 1025.

4- Death of helper- excavator dashed with the pillar and
helper died because, pillar fell on the helper- IC
sought to avoid its liability on the ground that
helper is the employee of the hirer and therefore, IC
is not liable – Whether sustainable- held – No - As
deceased was not hired on vehicle neither he was
travelling in the said vehicle.
2013 ACJ 1049.
5- 163A- Driver and Cleaner sustained injuries while
unloading goods- Whether claim petition u/s 163A is
2014 ACJ 1206.
6- Helper of the public service vehicle is entitled to
recover amount of compensation from IC.
2015 ACJ 1632 (Ori) followed 2013 ACJ 2205 (SC) –
Ramachandra v/s Regional Manager.
HOME
14. Premium and Additional Premium:-
1- Act policy- goods vehicle- payment of additional
premium- whether risk of person engaged in
loading/unloading is covered and IC is liable to pay
amount of compensation? -held- yes
2011 ACJ 1762 (KER)
2- Public risk policy- extent of liability of IC- truck
hitting scooter resulting in death of pillion rider-
premium was paid for public risk liability which was
more than the prescribed for the act liability-
whether in this case liability of IC is limited as per
the act? –held- no- public risk is wider term and
covers entire risk faced by the owner of vehicle-
public risk would cover unlimited amount of risk- IC
is liable-
2010 ACJ 2783 (GUJ), 2011 ACJ 2029 (DEL)
3- Payment of premium was made on 6.12.2003- IC received
payment without there being all details of the vehicle
and issued policy on 29.1.2004 – Accident occurred on
28.1.2004 - whether in such situation IC can be held
liable? -Held – Yes.
2013 ACJ 1344 (J&K)
HOME
15. Goods as defined u/s 2(13):-
1- Package policy- passenger risk- liability of IC- cow
and calf- animal- cattle- claimant travelling along
with his cattle- whether IC is liable?- held- yes- u/s
2 (13) of MV Act, goods includes, livestock
2011 ACJ 1464 (KAR)
2- Ganesh idol- whether falls with in the definition of
goods- held –yes
2011 ACJ 2091 (KAR)
HOME
16. Goods Vehicle and Gratuitous Passengers:-

1- Goods vehicle- owner/labourers coming back in the same
vehicle after unloading the goods to the particular
destination- accident while in the return journey-
whether IC is liable- held- yes- as claimant can’t be
treated as unauthorized passengers
2008 ACJ 1381(P&H), 2011 ACJ 1550 (P&H)
2- Passenger risk- owner of goods sharing seat with
driver of auto rickshaw as there was no separate seat
available- liability of IC- whether is there violation
of IP?- held- yes- owner alone is liable - order of
pay and recover
2008 ACJ 1741 (SC), 2001 ACJ 1656 (KER)
3- Whether a person who hired a goods carriage vehicle
would come within purview of Sub-sec. 1 of S. 147 of
the Act although no goods of his as such were carried
in the vehicle - claimant-respondent hired an auto
rickshaw which was goods carriage vehicle and he was
sitting by the side of the driver - held, if a person
has been traveling in a capacity other than the owner
of goods, the insurer would not be liable - it is well
settled that term 'any person' envisaged under the
said provision shall not include any gratuitous
passenger - in a three wheeler goods carriage, driver
could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat
- Tribunal and High Court should have held that owner
of vehicle is guilty of breach of conditions of policy
2008(12) SCC 657

4- Goods Vehicle- Owner paid Rs.50 to cover risk of non-
fare passenger- No evidence that claimant was
travelling in the goods vehicle as gratuitous
passenger- IC held liable to pay amount of compassion.
2014 ACJ 974 (Mad)
5- Goods Vehicle- IC exonerated but Tribunal passed and
order of Pay and Recover- Whether sustainable?- Held-
Yes.
2014 ACJ 1224.
6- Tractor ‘A’ dashed with Tractor ‘B’- 4 passengers of
Tractor ‘B’ got injured- insurance company sought to
avoid its liability on the ground that they were
gratuitous passengers- whether sustainable- held – no-
IC of Tractor ‘A’ is liable as 4 passengers of Tractor
‘B’ were the third party for Tractor ‘A’
2011 ACJ 2463 (MP)
7- Marriage party along with dowry articles in the goods
vehicle- whether gratuitous passengers- held –no- IC
is liable
2011 ACJ 2319 (GUJ), 2012 AAC 3211 (Bom)
But also see 2009(2) SCC 75 – U.I.A.com v/s
Rattani- contrary view by SC- Recent decision of
Gujarat High Court in the case of O.I.Com v.s
Chaturaben Bhurabhai Pipaliya, F.A. 2741 of 2008,
dated 03.04.2013 (MDSJ), 2013 ACJ 2823
8- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147 - liability of
insurer - claim petition filed by respondent, a
labourer, slipped down from trolley of tractor,
allegedly was being driven rashly and negligently by
its driver, came under the wheels thereof injuring his
gallbladder and left thigh, as a result where of he
suffered grievous injuries – tractor was supposed to
be used for agricultural purpose - held, no insurance
cover in respect of trolley - tractor was insured only
for agricultural work, excluding digging of earth and
brick-kiln purpose - thus, claim, not maintainable as
respondent was mere a gratuitous passenger, not
covered under S. 147 - however, considering empowrish
condition and disability, insurer directed to satisfy
the award with right to realize same from owner of

tractor - appeal allowed.
2007 (7) SCC 56
9- Whether IC is liable in a case where passenger were
travelling as gratuitous passengers in the private car
which is having package policy- held Yes -
2012 ACJ 326
10- Whether the owner of goods who were returning after
unloading the goods at proper destination can be
termed as gratuitous passengers?- Held- No.
2012 ACJ 1522, 2012 ACJ 1641 (before loading,
goods vehicle met with accident- IC held liable)
11- Pay and recover order by Tribunal when deceased was
admittedly a gratuitous passenger- whether valid-
Held- yes- as gratuitous passenger is held to third
party.
2012 ACJ 1661(J&K)
12- Goods Vehicle- gratuitous passenger- liability of
insurance company- Held- No.
2012 ACJ 2419
13- Goods Vehicle- Owner paid Rs.50 to cover risk of non-
fare passenger- No evidence that claimant was
travelling in the goods vehicle as gratuitous
passenger- IC held liable to pay amount of compassion.
2014 ACJ 974 (Mad)
14- Comprehensive Policy – Package Policy- IMT 37- Good
Vehicle- Gratuitous Passenger- driver of the vehicle
allowed 2 passengers to board in the vehicle which
turn turtle – IC charged premium for Non-Fare- Paying
Passenger. - Under this circumstances, IC held liable
to pay compensation.
2014 ACJ 2412 (Raj)
15- Gratuitous passengers- good vehicle- Truck stuck in
the road- passengers alighted from truck and while one
of them was pushing the truck he was crushed – whether
he can be termed as gratuitous passenger?- Held- No.
2014 ACJ (HP)
16– Act Policy – Good Vehicle – gratuitous passengers – IC
succeeded in proving that injured and persons who were
travelling in the said vehcile were gratuitous
passengers – whether in such situation an order of pay

and recover can be passed?- Held. NO.
2016 ACJ 557 (Guj) – UII Com. V/s Mahesh
Kanubhai.
17– Claimant hired tempo for purchasing good from the
market – before claimant could buy the good, vehicle
met with an accident- whether in such situation he can
be termed as gratuitous passenger?- Held. N0. IC hled
laible.
2016 ACJ 718 (Guj) – NIA com. V/s Rekhaben B N
Thakkar.
18– 20 to 22 passengers were travelling in the Goods
vehicle – all of them were having negligible
percentage of goods – whether under these
circumstances, Ic can be held responsible to pay
compensation? -Held- No.
2016 ACJ 1205 (Tri) – NI Com v/s Cholleti
Bharatamma, reported in 2008 ACJ 268 (SC)
followed.
HOME
17. Vehicle hired/leased:-

1- Liability of IC- minibus hired by Corporation along
with IP- driver provided by the owner who was supposed
to drive as per the instruction of the conductor, who
is employee of Corporation- accident- whether IC is
liable- held –yes.
2011 ACJ 2145 (SC), 2014 ACJ 1274 (AP) – UII Com
v/s Sharapuram Balavva
2- Owner- Hirer- Lease- Buses hired by Corporation and
plied them on the routes alloted to Corporation. -
Injuries by such buses- Whether IC is liable- Held –
Yes.
2013 ACJ 1593 (FB), 2014 ACJ 1323 (Kar), 2014 ACJ
1432 (AP), but 2014 ACJ 1605 (Mad)- NII Com. v/s
K. Vaijayanthimala., 2015 ACJ 2675 (All), 2011
ACJ 2145 (SC) – UPRTC v/s Rajeshwari, 2015 ACJ 1
(SC) HDFC bank v/s Reshma, 2015 ACJ 2849 (SC) =
2016(2) SCC 382 Karnataka SRTC v/s New India
Assurance Com., 2016 ACJ 485 (AP)

3- Vehicle on lease- Owner leased his vehicle to State
Department- Driver of owner- met with accident-
Whether State is liable?- Held- Yes- As per Section
2(30), owner of the vehicle includes a person in
possession of vehicle subject to agreement of lease-
State held to owner and held responsible to pay amount
of compassion.
2014 ACJ 893 (Gau)
4- Owner-Hirer – Van hirer by courier company under an
agreement and as per the conditions of the agreement,
owner was required to take comprehensive policy- No
evidence that driver was driving Van under the
direction and supervision of the hirer Courier Com.-
Whether Hirer is liable?- Held- No.
2014 ACJ 1790 (Mad).
5- Truck was taken on hire along with its driver by PWD
for constriction of road – when vehicles was being
driven by driver under the instruction of officer of
PWD, accident occurred – Whether PWD can held
responsible to pay compensation?- Held – Yes.
2015 ACJ 1162 (HP).
HOME
18. Which kind of licence required for

LMV-LGV-HGV-HTV-MGV:-
1- Driver was holding licence to ply ‘light motor
vehicle’- drove ‘pick up jeep’ which is transport
vehicle- whether IC is liable- held- no- w.e.f
29.03.2001, no person can said to hold an effective
driving licence to drive transport vehicle, if he only
holds a licence entitling him to drive ‘light motor
vehicle’- when there is no endorsement on driving
licence to drive transport vehicle, IC is not liable
2008 ACJ 721 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2115 (HP), 2014 ACJ
1128, 2015 ACJ 2070. But see 2014 ACJ 1117-
Tractor- whether Non transport vehicle or not –
which kind of licence is required. Also see 2016
ACJ 221 (Del), 2016 ACJ 952

2- Driving licence- liability of IC- ‘light motor
vehicle’- driver had licence to ply auto rickshaw and
was driving auto rickshaw delivery van, which caused
accident-Tribunal held that driver was not holding
valid licence- whether sustainable- held- no- further
held that use of vehicle for carriage of goods does
not take the auto rickshaw outside the scope and
definition of ‘light motor vehicle’, which includes a
transport vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not
exceed permissible limit of 7500kgs- lastly held that
driver was holding valid licence to drive and IC is
liable
2011 ACJ 1592 (ORI), 2014 ACJ 1037, 2014 ACJ
2148, 2014 ACJ 2259 (All), 2014 ACJ 2471 (Guj),
2014 ACJ 2703 (P&H), 2015 ACJ 1379 (Mad)
3- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - u/s. 149, 163A, 166 and 170
- Vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle - Driver
was holder of licence to drive LMV - Driver not
holding licence to drive commercial vehicle - Breach
of contractual condition of insurance - Owner of
vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to
verify as to whether driver possessed a valid licence
- Extent of third party liability of insurer - Death
of a 12-year girl in accident - Claimants are from
poor back-ground - After having suffered mental agony,
not proper to send them for another round of
litigation - Insurer directed to pay to claimants and
then recover from the owner in view of Nanjappan's
case [2005 SCC (Cri.) 148].
4- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 10(2) - motor accident
claim - liability of insurer - appellant insurance
company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of
compensation to the claimants for the cause of death
in road accident which had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of scooterist who admittedly had no
valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on
the day of accident - scooterist was possessing
driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving
totally different class of vehicle which act of his is
in violation of S. 10(2) of the Act.

2008(12) SCC 385 – O I Com. Ltd v/s Zahirunisha
(2008 ACJ 1928 (SC)}. - Relying upon above
referred judgment Hon'ble P & H Court has
exonerated IC but passed an order of Pay and
Recover. - 2015 ACJ 1829 (P&H)
5- Death of workman who was sitting on the mudguard- IC
sought to avoid its liability on the ground that
driver was holding License to drive heavy transport
vehicle but he was driving tractor which did not
conform to the particular category- License for
higher category of vehicle will not amount to valid
and effective DL to drive a vehicle of another
category- IC is held not liable-
2012 ACJ 179
6- licence- endorsement on licence- Specific endorsement
to ply a transport vehicle is necessary.
2013 ACJ 487 & 668 – IMP- Relied on 2006 ACJ
1336- Kusum Rai, 2008 ACJ 627 N.I. A.Co. v/s
Prabhulal , 2008 ACJ 721, N.I.Com. v/s Annappa
Irappa Nesaria (wherein it is held that
endorsement is required from 28.03.2001), 2009
ACJ 1141, O.I.Com. v/s Angad Kol (wherein it is
held that for non passenger/ non transport
vehicles, licences are issued for 20 years
whereas for passengers vehicles they are issued
for 3 years only).
7- LMV- whether tractor, pickup van are light motor
vehicle? - Held- yes, as defined u/s 2(21) of the Act.
2013 ACJ 1160, 2014 ACJ – Sudha v/s Dalip Singh
(P&H), 2014 ACJ 2817 (Chh), 2015 ACJ 1899 (Del),
2015 ACJ 2744 (HP) (Pickup van)
7A- M V Act – u/s 3, 2(21), 2(47) – LMV – Transport
Vehicle – Whether driver having licence to drive LMV
has to obtain an endorsement to drive transport
vehicle when such transport vehicle is LMV – issue
referred to Larger Bench.
2016 ACJ 1008 (SC)– Mukund Dewangan v/s O.I. Com.
8- Tractor is LMV and Car /Jeep are also LMV and,
therefore, driver who was holding DL to drive LMV
(Car/Jeep) can also drive Tractor.
2013 ACJ 2679- Ghansham v/s O.I.Com.

9- Tractor – DL- LMV & HTV- Tractor is defined u/s
2(44)- Whether for driving Tractor, separate licence
is required?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 854 (P&H).
10- Badge- Vehicle of same category
2014 ACJ 1180
LMV can be equated with LGV for the purpose
of Driving Licence (DL)? - Held – yes. - Same
cannot be termed as breach of IP.
2014 ACJ 2873 (SC) - Kulwant Singh v/s OI
Com. - S. Iyyappa v/s UII Com, 2013 ACJ 1944
followed. Also see 2015 ACJ (AP), 2015 ACJ 2602
(Ker)
11- DL- LMV – LGV – Accident occurred prior to the
amendment which came into effect from of 21.03.2001 -
Driver was holding DL to drive LMV but was driving LGV
– Whether IC can be held liable?- Held- Yes. - 2008
ACJ 721(SC)- Annappa Irappa Nesaria.
2014 ACJ 1828 (Raj)
case [2005 SCC (Cri.) 148].
2006(2) GLH 15 (SC) – N.I.A Com v/s Kusum Rai.
Following Kusum Rai judgment, Delhi High
Court in the case of O I Com. v/s Shahnawaz,
reorted in 2014 ACJ 2124 has held that driver of
offending vehicle was possessinng lincence to ply
LMV (Non-transport) but was plying Tata Sumo
registered as Tourist Taxi and, therefore, IC is

13- Liability of IC- to avoid liability, IC had to prove
that owner of the vehicle knew that driver was not
having valid driving licence- Driver was having
licence to ply LMV, MGV and HGV- IC did not led any
evidence to prove that owner knew about driver being
incompetent to ply passenger vehicle.-
2012 AAC 3302 (J & K) - N.I. Com. v/s Mst.
Bakhta., 2014 ACJ 1037
14- Central M.V. Rules- Rule 16- Tractor Driving licence-
Rule 16 provides that every licence issued or renewed
shall be in Form VI which provides for grant of
licence in respect of LMV or Transport Vehicle amongst
other categories but there is no specific entry for
issuance of licence for driving a Tractor. As per
Section 2(44), by definition Tractor is LMV and,
therefore, when driver has licence to ply LMV, he can
also ply Tractor.
2014 ACJ (P&H)
15- DL – Valid DL – IC disputed its liability on the ground
that driver of offending vehicle was holding DL for
driving LMV but actually at the time accident, he was
driving LMV (commercial) – liability to prove that driver
of offending vehicle had no valid DL at the time accident,
is on the shoulder of IC.
2015 ACJ 340 (Del) but also see 2015 ACJ 576 (AP)
16 – Whether a person holding HGV can ply LMV – Held- Yes. As
as per Section 7 of M V Act, a person holding a licence to
drive LMV for atleast one year only is entitled to apply
for HGV licence.
2015 ACJ 2875 (HP)
HOME
19. Avoidance Clause:-

1- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - S. 96 - motor accident -
liability of insurance company - liability of insurer
limited upto Rs. 50,000/- as per limits of policy -
High Court found that insurer was liable upto Rs.
50,000/- but gave direction to pay claimants entire
amount of compensation, but would be entitled to

recover amount excess in its liability from owner of
vehicle - avoidance clause in policy provided that
nothing therein would affect the right of person who
is entitled to indemnification from insurer to recover
under S. 96 of the Act - whether, directions given by
High Court in consonance with terms of policy - held,
considering avoidance clause in policy, the directions
given by High Court are in terms of policy,
2011 ACJ 2878 (SC), Santaben Vankar 2011 (3) GCD
2101 (GUJ)= 2012 AAC 2528
20. Injuries and Disabilities:-

1- Injury case- doctor assessed disability as 75%- doctor
was cross examined at length but nothing adverse was
traced out- Tribunal and HC assessed disability at
50%, without there being any cogent reason- whether
proper- held – no – once doctor has opined that
injured has sustained 75% disability and nothing
adverse was traced out in his cross examination-
Tribunal and HC erred in assessing disability as 50%
2011 ACJ 2466 (SC) D.Sampath versus U.I.I. Com.
Ltd, Rudra versus Divisional Manager, reported
in 2011 SC 2572 =2011 (11) SCC 511.
2- Leg injuries resulted in fracture- Doctor access
disablement as 20-25% by observing that there is
deficiency in the muscle- same was not believed by the
lower Courts by holding that same did not result into
permanent disablement- SC overruled the same
2012 ACJ 1459 (SC) – Manoj Rathod
3- Doctors cannot be called to prove documents with
respect to prolonged treatment unless they create
doubt-
2012 ACJ 1847
4- Whether the disability certificate issued by the
private hospital is admissible in view of Rule 10.2
of the Rajasthan M.V. Rules, 1990- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1236 (Raj)
5- Amputation- Whether the victim is entitled for
compensation under the head of 'permanent

Disablement'- Held- Yes.
2013 ACJ 1935 (SC) – S. Manickam v/s Metropolitan
Transport
6- Arm amputation- Whether claimant is entitled for any
amount under the head of loss of amenities over and
above the loss of earning capacity.
2013 ACJ 2122 (SC) – Neerupam Mohan Mathur v/s
New India I.Com
7- Fracture of Pelvis and Uretha, resulting in impotence-
High amount of compensation granted by SC
2013 ACJ 2131 (SC) – G. Ravindranath v/s E.
Srinivas
8- Amputation- left hand- Calculation of amount of
compensation-
2014 ACJ 648 (SC) (FB) – M.D. Jacob v/s UII Com.,
2014 ACJ 1375 (SC) (FB) – M.K. Gopinathan, 2014
ACJ 1412 (SC) (FB)- Dinesh Singh
9- Fracture Injuries to minor intelligent girl- good
academic career- determination of compensation-
Guideline.
2014 ACJ 1441 (SC) – V. Menka v/s M. Malathi
HOME
21. Review and Recalling:-

1- Whether review is maintainable- held – no – several SC
judgements followed
2011 ACJ 2720, 2012 AAC 3007 (All)- 2011 SCW
2154, 1999 (1) TAC 449, 2013 ACJ 1130, 2013 ACJ
1892 (All), 2014 ACJ 2836 (All), 2015 ACJ 1333
(Mad), 2016 ACJ 517 (ALL)
2 – Whether an award passed by the Tribunal under the
wrong impression or by playing fraud can be recalled?-
Held- Yes. Further held that under this situation, IC
can recover the disbursed amount from the owner of the
vehicle.
2016 ACJ 1210 (Gau)
HOME

22 Employees’ State Insurance Act and
Employee's Compensation Act :-
1- E.S.I. Act u/s 28, 53 and 61- bar u/s 53 and 61
against receiving of compensation under any other Law-
employee of Telecom Dept., insured under E.S.I. Act-
he was traveling in department's jeep – met with
accident- fatal- contention raised that in view of the
bar imposed u/s 53 and 61 of E.S.I Act, claim petition
under M.V is not maintainable- whether sustainable-
held- no- section 28 does not cover accidental death
while traveling in a vehicle on road and therefore
claim petition under M.V. Act is maintainable
2012 ACJ 233, 2016 ACJ 265 (P&H)
2- Employee insured under the ESI Scheme- Whether claim
petition under the M.V. Act or W.C. Act is
maintainable?- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 865
But claim petition is maintainable when it
is not filed against employer. ESI Act does not
bar right to claim compensation against third
party under the MV Act.
2013 ACJ 1581
3- Employee's Compensation Act – Driver of ST bus – his
LR can file claim petition either before MACT or under
Employee's Compensation but not under both.
2015 ACJ 20 (Guj) - Gulamrashul Malek v/s/
GSRTC, Guidelines in this regar – 2015 ACJ 1936
(Mad)
4- Ex Gratia payment can be deducted from the final
amount of compensation?- Held- No.
2015 ACJ 168 (MP)
HOME
23. Life Insurance:-

1- Life Insurance- Double accident Benefit- Whether can
be allowed- Held- Yes
2014 ACJ 1237
HOME

24. Medical Reimbursement:-
1- Medical reimbursement- claimant got the same as he was
medically insured- whether IC is under statutory duty
to pay medical bill, though same is reimbursement by
the claimant- held – no- IC is not statutorily liable
to pay medical bill as same is reimbursed under
medical policy
2011 ACJ 2447 (DEL), 2016 ACJ 807 (Ker)
HOME
25. Family Pension:-

1- Quantum- Medical Policy- whether amount received under
the medical policy is deductible from the amount of
compensation? - Held -No.- SC decisions referred.
2012 ACJ 1114 (Ker) – Family pension is also like
wise- 2012 ACJ 1197(Bom), 2015 ACJ 1195 (Cal)
26. Compassionate Appointment:-

1- Compassionate appointment given to widow- whether
Tribunal can deduct dependency benefit on that count?-
Held- No.
2012 (2) GLH 246.- Girishbhai Devjibhai, - 2012
AAC 3065 (All)- SC judgments followed. - 2013 ACJ
129 (P&H). 2014 ACJ 822 (Guj)
2- In the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of LIC v. L.R. of deceased
Naranbhai, reported in 1972 GLR 920, it is held that
the amounts received by the claimant on account of the
insurance taken by him for his own benefit and with
his own money, is a collateral benefit and such
benefit could not be deducted from the compensation
amount. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case
viz. Dayaljibhai Manibhai Patel v. Erachsha Dhanjisha
Variyava in First Appeal No. 402 of 1986 has decided
on 28th July, 2006, had taken a same view.
HOME

27. Pillion Rider:-
1- Pillion rider- Act Policy- liability of IC- death of
pillion rider- IC disputed its liability on the ground
that policy was statutory policy and it did not cover
the risk of pillion rider- statutory policy covers the
risk of TP only and it did not cover risk of pillion
rider and gratuitous passenger
2003 ACJ 1 (SC), 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), 2009 ACJ 104
(SC)
2- One of the two pillion riders injured- Tribunal held
that both drivers were negligent in causing accident
and their respective blame being 75:25 between bus
driver and moped- whether pillion rider is responsible
for accident?- held- yes- as he had violated traffic
rules- 25% deducted from awarded amount
2011 ACJ 1766 (MAD) but see 2013 ACJ 1227 ((HP),
2013 ACJ 2008 (MP), 2014 ACJ 1287 (Raj), 2014 ACJ
1762, 2014 ACJ 2425 (P&H), 2014 ACJ 2699 (Raj),
2014 ACJ 2808 (P&H), 2015 ACJ (P&H), 2016 ACJ 936
(P&H), 2016 ACJ 1273 (Cal)
3- Act policy- statutory policy- pillion rider- whether
IC is liable- held – no- such policy covers the TP
risk only and not of pillion rider- IC held not liable
2003 ACJ 1 (SC), 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), 2009 ACJ 104
(SC) But when extra premium is paid (package
policy) to cover the risk of pillion rider IC is
liable to pay to pillion rider also
2011 ACJ 2100(KAR)-
4- Pillion rider of motor cycle- package policy – whether
IC is liable- held- yes – as insured had paid premium
to cover the damage to the vehicle and pillion rider
2011 ACJ 2100 (KAR)
5- Motor accident - insurance claim - deceased was
travelling as a pillion rider - fell down from the
scooter and succumbed to the injuries - claim
repudiated by insurance company on ground that
deceased being a gratuitous passenger and insurance
policy did not cover risk of injury or death of such
passenger - whether pillion rider on a scooter would

be a third party within the meaning of S. 147 of the
Act - held, liability of the insurance company in a
case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider
of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of
premium is paid for covering his/her risk (ii) the
legal obligation arising u/s. 147 of the Act cannot be
extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle
or the pillion rider (iii) the pillion rider in a two
wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when
the accident has taken place owing to rash and
negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of
the driver of another vehicle
2008(7) SCC 428
6- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147, 157, 217 - motor
accident - liability of the Insurance Company towards
third party - two wheeler of respondent no. 5 was
insured with the appellant company - however, an
endorsement regarding pillion rider was not included
in the Insurance Contract - two wheeler was sold to
respondent no. 1 during the period of availability of
insurance cover - sale was not intimated to the
Insurance Company - as a result of an accident, the
pillion rider died - compensation awarded by Tribunal
- held, the Act of 1988 is applicable to the case as
the accident took place after the commencement of the
Act, 1988 - the statutory insurance policy did not
cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to
gratuitous passenger - therefore, the Insurance
Company is not liable to pay compensation for the
death of the pillion rider - further, failure to
intimation for the transfer of the vehicle would not
effect third parties claim for compensation
2006(4) SCC 404 –U.I.I.Com v/s Tilak Singh
7- U/s 147(1)- package policy- pillion rider- liability
of IC is sought to be avoided on the ground that no
additional premium has been paid to cover risk of
pillion rider- IRDA in its clarification circular
mentioned that passenger carried in private vehicle
and pillion riders are covered under the terms and
conditions of Slandered Motor Package Policy- When

vehicle is covered under the package policy- IC is to
be held liable
2011 ACJ 2527 (Ker)
8- Two pillion rider- offending tractor dashed with said
bike- Rider of bike could not see the tractor as same
was not having head lights- Tribunal exonerated rider
of bike- whether sustainable?- Held- Yes- Only because
rider of bike had allowed, two pillion rider to travel
on the bike does not lead to infer that rider of bike
had contributed in causing the accident.
2012 ACJ 2678(MP)- 2008 ACJ 393 (MP).
9- Meaning of 'Unnamed Passenger'- would mean pillion
rider and not the driver of two wheeler.
2014 ACJ 101 (Chh)
10- Motor accident - insurance claim - deceased was
travelling as a pillion rider - fell down from the
scooter and succumbed to the injuries - claim
repudiated by insurance company on ground that
deceased being a gratuitous passenger and insurance
policy did not cover risk of injury or death of such
passenger - whether pillion rider on a scooter would
be a third party within the meaning of S. 147 of the
Act - held, liability of the insurance company in a
case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider
of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of
premium is paid for covering his/her risk (ii) the
legal obligation arising u/s. 147 of the Act cannot be
extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle
or the pillion rider (iii) the pillion rider in a two
wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when
the accident has taken place owing to rash and
negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of
the driver of another vehicle
2008(7) SCC 428.
HOME

28 Commencement of Policy and Breach of
Policy:-
1-- Policy – commencement of - premium accepted on 3.5.97-
but cover note specified the effective date of
commencement as 5.5.97, as 3.5.97 was holiday- IC
contended that at the date of accident i.e.4.5.97,
there was not effective policy in existence- whether
IC is liable- held- yes- contract of insurance comes
in to effect from the date of acceptance of premium-
more particularly when IC had received the premium
prior to the date of accident
2011 ACJ 1728 (BOM)
2- Accident occurred on 20.5.85 at 7.45 pm- IP valid from
20.5.85 to 19.5.86- IP does not speak about the time
of commencement of policy-when policy is silent about
the time of its commencement, starting time has to be
taken as from the midnight of 20.5.85 and its ends at
2400 hrs on 19.5.86- Ic held liable
2011 ACJ 2394 (DEL)
3- An insurance policy, in law, could be issued from a
future date. A policy, however, which is issued from a
future date must be with the consent of the holder of
the policy. The insurance company cannot issue a
policy unilaterally from a future date without the
consent of the holder of a policy –
2009 (13) SCC-370 –Blabir Kaur v/s N.I.A.Com
4- U/s 147 (1)- Insurance Act u/s 64-VB- IC tried to
avoid its liability on the ground that police has not
come into existence as verification of vehicle was not
done- whether sustainable- Held- No- once premium is
paid, IC cannot avoid its liability-
2012 ACJ 1322
5- Commencement of policy- starts when?- It starts when
entire amount of premium is paid/made and it does not
make any difference when policy is made effective.
2013 ACJ 2493 (Mad)- O. I. Com. v/s Venkataraman,
dated 18.07.2012.
6- Section 64-VB – commencement of policy – whether IC
can defer assumption of risk to a later point of time

other than from the date and time of receipt of the
premium?- Held- No.- Insurance Policy (IP) under the
MV Act stand on differnet footing than the other IP
2014 ACJ 2847 (Chh) – SC judgments followed.
7- One of the grounds which is available to the Insurance
Company for denying its statutory liability is that
the policy is void having been obtained by reason of
non-disclosure of a material fact or by a
representation of fact which was false in some
material particular - once a valid contract is entered
into, only because of a mistake, the name of original
owner not been mentioned in the certificates of
registration, it cannot be said that the contract
itself is void - unless it was shown that in obtaining
the said contract, a fraud has been practiced - no
particulars of fraud pleaded- IC held liable
2009 (1) SCC 58.
8- Private vehicle- breach of policy- in FIR it is stated
that vehicle was hired- IC disputed its liability
relying on the word ‘hired’ in FIR- eye witnesses
deposed that vehicle was ‘borrowed’ from the friend
and denied that it was ‘hired’- whether IC is liable-
held- yes- as IC has neither confronted the witnesses
with the statement made by them in FIR nor examined
the IO or RTO officer
2011 ACJ 1482 (SIK)
9- Liability of IC- in tariff, under 'Limits of
Liability' it is mentioned 'As required by Law' and
not 'Act Policy' – words explained. In such
situation, IC is liable to pay awarded by the
Tribunal.
2012 AAC 3136.
10- Farmer's Package Policy- Tractor-trolley- purpose –
use of - guideline for assessment of liability of IC.
2014 ACJ 1691 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 2624 (All), 2014
ACJ 1254 (SC) – Fahim Ahmad v/s UII Com.
11- Contention that accident occurred on 27.11.1992 at
12.30 pm and policy was obtained at 3.30 pm on the
same day without disclosing fact accident and,
therefore, IC is not liable.- Whether sustainable?-

Held- No. Since IC failed to prove that policy came
into existence w.e.f. 27.11.1992 at 3.30 pm.
2015 ACJ 1347 (Jhr).
12– Owner of the offending vehicle did not file written
statement neither adduced any evidence that before the
date of accident, premium was paid by him and IC
issued Cover note on the basis. - IC also disputed
that said cover note was forged – Under these
circumstances, IC held not liable to pay compensation.
2015 ACJ 1824 (Bom)
HOME
29. Driver-Owner:-
1- Two vehicular not driven by owner but the deceased- no
additional premium was paid to cover the risk of other
than the owner of vehicle-Whether IC is liable- held-
no.
2009 ACJ 998 (SC)
2- Act policy- deceased was not the owner of the car- IC
seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that
deceased was driving the car without the consent of
the owner- owner deposed that deceased was driving the
car with his consent- whether IC is liable- held- no-
deceased stepped in to the shoes of the owner
2009 ACJ 2020 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2251 (P&H)
3- Death of the owner of the truck – IC disputed its
liability on the ground that there is “Act policy’ and
risk only TP is covered- sustainable- held- no- it was
proved by the claimant that extra premium was paid and
IC has deliberately not mentioned the nature of policy
in the cover note- IC failed to discharge its burden
and prove that policy was ‘Act policy’ and IC’s
liability was restricted to statutory liability- IC
held liable
2011 ACJ 2275 (SIK)
4- S. 147, 166 - motor accident - owner himself involved
in accident, resulting in his death - he himself was
negligent - accident did not involve any other motor
vehicle - liability of Insurance Company - claim

petition under S. 166 - maintainability of - held,
liability of insurer-company is to the extent of
indemnification of insured against injured persons, a
third person or in respect of damages of property - if
insured cannot be fastened with any liability,
question not arise - additional premium under the
insurance policy was not paid in respect of entire
risk of death or bodily injury of owner of vehicle -
present case did not fall under S. 147(b) as it covers
a risk of a third party only
2007(9) SCC 263 – Jumma Shaha
5- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147 - question for
consideration as to whether comprehensive policy would
cover risk of injury to owner of vehicle also -
Tribunal directed driver and insurance company to pay
compensation to appellant-owner of vehicle - appellant
challenged order whereby it was held that as appellant
was owner of vehicle insurance company is not liable
to pay him any compensation - insurance policy covers
liability incurred by insured in respect of death of
or bodily injury to any person carried in vehicle or
damage to any property of third party - whether
premium paid under heading 'Own damage' is for
covering liability towards personal injury - held, S.
147 does not require insurance company to assume risk
for death or bodily injury to owner of vehicle - where
owner of vehicle has no liability to third party,
insurance company also has no liability also - it has
not been shown that policy covered any risk for injury
to owner himself - premium paid under heading 'Own
damage' does not cover liability towards personal
injury - premium is towards damage to vehicle and not
for injury to person of owner - appeal dismissed.
2004 (8) SCC 553 – Dhanraj v/s N.I. A. Com
6- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147 - question for
consideration as to whether comprehensive policy would
cover risk of injury to owner of vehicle also -
Tribunal directed driver and insurance company to pay
compensation to appellant-owner of vehicle - appellant
challenged order whereby it was held that as appellant
was owner of vehicle insurance company is not liable

to pay him any compensation - insurance policy covers
liability incurred by insured in respect of death of
or bodily injury to any person carried in vehicle or
damage to any property of third party - whether
premium paid under heading 'Own damage' is for
covering liability towards personal injury - held, S.
147 does not require insurance company to assume risk
for death or bodily injury to owner of vehicle - where
owner of vehicle has no liability to third party
insurance company has no liability also - it has not
been shown that policy covered any risk for injury to
owner himself - premium paid under heading 'Own
damage' does not cover liability towards personal
injury - premium is towards damage to vehicle and not
for injury to person of owner - appeal dismissed.
2009(2) SCC 417 –N.I.A v/s Saddanand Mukhi
7- Managing Trustee died in the accident- Vehicle was
registered in his name- whether he can be held as
owner? -Held- No.
2012 ACJ 1886
8- Non-joinder of driver- IC did not agitated the same
during trial, though plea of non-joinder was taken in
WS- Whether, such plea can be allowed to be raised at
the time of final hearing or appeal? - Held- No.
2012 ACJ 2647. SC judgments followed.
9- Act policy – Goods vehicle- Whether IC is liable to
pay compensation to the employees of the hirer? Held-
No- IC is liable to pay compensation only to the
employees of owners.
2013 ACJ 1- Sanjeev Samrat.
10- Death of the owner of the jeep- in such case, IC is
2013 ACJ 1382. (Del)
11- Motorcycle- Motorcyclist driving motorcycle at
moderate speed applied brake in stagnant rain water,
vehicle skidded and he sustained injuries- IP cover
risk of Driver-Owner- Tribunal found that there was no
negligence on the part of the motorcyclist- Whether in
such situation IC is liable?- Held- Yes- In view of
the IMT 15.
2014 ACJ 721 (Mad).

12- Owner-driver – Wife is a owner of the vehicle which
bing driven by deceased husband- whether husband can
be said to be third party for wife?- Held- No.- As he
stepped in to the shoe of the owner- Only entitled for
Rs.2,00,000.
2014 ACJ 1524 (UK). Also see 2014 ACJ 1574
(Del), wherein it is held that as per IMT GR-36
personal accident cover is available to the owner
of insured vehicle holding valid and effective
licence but anybody driving the vehicle with or
without permission of the owner cannot be taken
as owner-driver.
Also - deceased stepped into the shoe of the
owner - when IC failed to prove that accident
occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased,
claim petition u/s 163-A cannot be turned down.
2015 ACJ 2739 (AP) Several SC judgments
relied upon.
Also see 2016 ACJ 335 (Kar) – Rs.1,00,000/-
awarded.
13- Owner-cum-driver – Additional premium of Rs.2,00,000/-
paid – Whether IC is liable to pay?- Held -Yes as same
is covered under compulsory accident cover.
2014 ACJ 2195 (Mad)
14- Driver- on deputation- whether temporary employer is
liable to make good to the temporary employee who is
working on deputation with it?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 2791 (Bom).
15- Owner travelling along with his goods which was being
driven by driver and accident occurred and owner
sustain injuries – whether IC is liable to pay
compensation?- Held- No. As owner cannt be held to be
Third Party.
2014 ACJ 2869 (AP) - Dhanraj v/s NIA Com, 2005
ACJ 1 (SC) followed.
16- Jeep driven by father of the owner- policy covers only
six passengers- actually 11 passengers were
travelling- jeep fell in to ditch resulting death of

all passengers- IC is liable- not for all claimant- IC
is directed to pay compensation and further ordered to
recover from the owner and driver
2011 AIR SCW 2802- K.M. Poonam
17- Driver-owner held responsible for causing the
accident- other vehicle which dashed with the vehicle
of driver-owner, did not have valid and effective
policy- Tribunal jointly held driver-owner and driver
of the other vehicle responsible in the said accident
and directed the IC of the driver-owner to pay
compensation- whether sustainable- Held- No- As policy
covers only TP and not owner.
2013 ACJ 393 (Cal)- SC judgments followed.
18– Driver-owner -owner was driving jeep and sustained
fatal injuries – whether IC can be held responsible?-
Held – yes – as per Section 2(9) of M V Act, any
person behind the steering wheel is a driver and owner
of the vehicle would also be a driver – if policy is
comprehensive and risk of the driver is covered under
such policy then IC can be held responsible.
2015 ACJ 2833 (All)
19– Motor cycle of the owner was borrowed – met with an
accident with truck – additional premium of was paid
to driver the risk of Driver-owner – whether borrower
is entitled to claim compensation as driver of the two
wheeler?- Held- Yes. As term driver is explained in IC
as ”any person including the insured”. 2016 ACJ 47
(P&H)
But see 2016 ACJ 1050 (P&H)
HOME
30. Travelling on roof-top of the bus:-
1- Travelling on roof top- IC seeks to avoid its
liability on that count- Tribunal found deceased to be
partly negligent and allowed claim petition partly-
whether sustainable- held- yes- as IC failed to prove
that deceased was not holding the valid tickets-
2011 ACJ 2156 (ALL)- also see 2014 ACJ 17 (P&H),
2014 ACJ 2690 (MP)

2- Travelling on the roof top- whether it is a case of
contributory negligence?- Held- No – as passengers are
at the mercy of the bus operators.
2013 ACJ 1058, 2013 ACJ 2834.
HOME
31. Private Vehicle:-

2011 ACJ 1482 (SIK), 2015 ACJ 1928 (Pat)
2- IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that
deceased and other injured students were travelling in
privet ‘jeep’, which they had taken on hire-
comprehensive policy covers the risk of inmates of
private vehicle- IC cannot avoid its liability on the
ground that deceased was paid passenger- held- terms
in policy which discriminate liability of insurance
company for paid inmate and gratuitous passengers ,
held discriminatory and illegal-
2011 ACJ 1831 (KAR)
3- Private car policy- gratuitous passengers- whether IC
is laible?- Held -no.
2012 ACJ 1880
4- Act Policy- private vehicle- liability of insurance
company- no evidence produced by IC to avoid its
liability. Deceased cannot be said that they were
gratuitous passenger when they were travelling in
private car.
2012 ACJ 2451 (Ori).
5- Private vehicle/car - package policy- whether
occupants of the said vehicle be treated as TP?-
Whether IC can be held liable to pay compensation to
such occupants?- Held- yes.

2013 ACJ 321 (SC) – O.I.Com. v/s Surendra Nath
Loomba. Also see, Blalakrishan judgment.
6- Private vehicle- Package policy- comprehensive policy-
owner-cum-driver – additional premium paid by owner-
whether under such situation IC can be held liable to pay
amount of compensation?- Held- Yes. - National Insurance
company v/s Balakrishnan, 2013 ACJ 199 (SC) followed.
2015 ACJ 379 (Sik), 2016 ACJ 194 (Bom)
7- Private vehicle- owner of private car died due the
negligent driving of the car owned by the deceased- along
with owner, his son was also travelling in the said car
and he also died in the said car accident- mother of the
minor filed claim petition without joining her
husband/owner as party opponent but joined only IC-
whether in such situation, her claim petition is
2015 ACJ 531 (HP)
8- It is proved that Private vehicle was used as
commercial vehicle – IC held not liable.
2016 ACJ 371 (Del).
9– School bus was being used for marriage party –
whetehrin such situation IC is held laible to pay
compensation? - Held- Yes.
2016 ACJ 732 (Chh)
HOME
32. Permit:-
offending vehicle was being plied without permit- duty
of IC to verify the fact that permit of vehicle was
valid or not at the time of insuring the vehicle- IC
having insured the vehicle without valid permit cannot
seek exemption from liability
2011 ACJ 1683 (UTK)
2- Permit- IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground
that owner of ‘Taxi’, which hit the pedestrians had
violated terms of policy as ‘taxi’ could not have been
used in a public place after expiry of permit- policy
was found to be valid- no case of IC that passengers

were being carried for hire and reward and policy did
not cover the case of TP- victim did not suffer
injuries while travelling in the ‘taxi’ for hire or
reward-mere expiry of permit would not absolve IC to
pay compensation, as no provision of MV Act is shown
by IC to point out that owner of ‘taxi’ was under
legal obligation, not to ply ‘taxi’ after the expiry
of permit
2011 ACJ 2242 (KER)
3- Vehicle was insured but not having valid permit-
breach of policy- order of pay and recover passed.
2012 AAC 3234, 2016 ACJ 365 (P&H)
4- Valid permit- IC sough to avoid its liability on the
ground that terms and conditions of the policy is
violated- Whether sustainable- Held- No-
2013 ACJ 788
5- Route permit – Breach of policy- When there is breach
of policy, IC is not liable to pay amount of
compensation.
2013 ACJ 1008. Similar view is taken by HP High
Court in the case of OI Com. v/s Samila, 2013 ACJ
2785 – Also see Note 326
IC is liable to satisfy the TP claim even if
route permit is violated.- 2014 ACJ 1597 (P&H) –
NII Com. v/s Anuradha. Also see 2014 ACJ 2039 –
Pawan Kumar v/s Jaswant Kaur, 2016 ACJ 970 (Kar)
6- Violation of Permit- alleged that offending vehicle
was being plied at the place where it had no valid
permit to ply- whether on this count IC can avoid it's
liability- Held -No.
2013 ACJ 2282 (P&H).
7- Permit- When can it be said owner/driver has violated
terms and condition of the permit and same is
fundamental breach.
2013 ACJ 2570 (Del). Mahender Singh v/s O.I.Com.
2013 ACJ 2589 (Del)
8- Route permit- when there is violation of route permit,

IC is not liable to pay amount of compensation- order
of Pay and Recover can be passed.
2014 ACJ 160 (HP)- 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC) – Challa

Bharathamma followed. Also see 2015 ACJ 2094
(HP).
Contrary views are taken in 2014 ACJ 1284,
2015 ACJ 2754 (P&H) - IC held not liable to pay
compensation.
Hon'ble P & H High Court (Chandigarh Bench)
has taken both the above views. Those judgments
are reported in 2015 ACJ 1791 and 2015 ACJ 1793.
In 2015 ACJ 2754 (P&H) there is good
discussion on Section 149 (2) (a) (i) (c) r/w
Section 66 of M V Act and Permit.
9- Breach of policy and permit- overloading- order of pay
and recover passed.
2014 ACJ 385 (Mad).
10- Permit- IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground
that driver of offending vehicle was not possessing
authorization card- Whether it amount to fundamental
breach?- Held- No.
offending vehicle was being plied without permit- duty
of IC to verify the fact that permit of vehicle was
valid or not at the time of insuring the vehicle- IC
having insured the vehicle without valid permit cannot
seek exemption from liability
2011 ACJ 1683 (UTK)
12- On whose shoulder the responsibility to lies to prove that
owner had violated the terms and conditions of the
Permit?- Held – on IC.
2015 ACJ 570 (Raj).
13- Permit – violation – Defence of IC is that offending
vehicle was being driven by a driver authorised by the
permit holder and not by permit holder himself and same
was in violation of condition No.V of the permit and,
therefore, IC can not be held responsible to compensation
– whether such defence is sustainable – Held- No. As such
defence is not available u/s 149 (2) of M v Act.
2015 ACJ 1990 (Del)
14- Temporary Permit -violation of- there cannot be automatic
presumption that violation of provision of MV Act will
amount to violation of terms and conditions of contract.
2015 ACJ 2592 (P&H).

15- Tribunal found that owner had no permit for plying auto
rickshaw thus he violated terms of the policy and permit
and exonerated IC– in appeal owner contended that he was
plying the vehicle without any passenger on the public
road - whether owner/driver is prohibited to ply vehicle
without any passenger on the public road?- Section 66 is
limited to the use of vehicle as transport vehicle without
a valid permit and it does not prohibit plying the
vehicle without any passenger on the public road Held.
No.- IC held liable.
2016 ACJ 679 (Ker)
HOME
33 Hire and Reward owner/driver for
production of DL:-
1- Liability of IC in case where passengers were carried
in private vehicle for hire or reward- such passengers
not being TP- IC held not liable as neither the
premium was paid for carriage of passengers nor there
was any permit to ply vehicle for hire or reward
2011 ACJ 1753 (HP)
2011 ACJ 1482 (SIK)
3- Death of passenger travelling in the Jeep- IC disputed
its liability on the ground that there was Act policy
and deceased was traveling on hire and policy does not
cover the risk of person- whether sustainable?- held-
no- IC adduced no evidence to prove that Jeep was used
for hire and reward-as per registration certi. All
such persons come within the expression TP and since
policy covers TP risk, IC is held liable
2011 ACJ 2638. But see 2015 ACJ 2098 (Bom –
Aurangabad Bench).

4- Constitution of India - Art. 136 - Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 - S. 149 - Tractor plying on hire - Labourer
sitting on the mudguard of Tractor - Falling down -
Getting crushed under the wheels - Driver not
possessing a valid license - Tribunal awarding
compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs - High Court summarily
dismissing the appeal of Insurance Company - Held : It
was not a fit case for any interference under Article
136 of the Constitution of India, however, it is open
to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from
owner by filing application before the Tribunal
without filing a separate execution petition against
the owner
2008 (2) GLH 393 (SC) –N.I.A Com v/s Darshan Devi
IC held not liable- 2013 ACJ 2108 (P & H), 2014
ACJ 1792 (MP)
5- Owner of the bus gave the same on hire to the
Corporation along with policy- bus dashed with two
wheeler – whether IC can avoid its liability-held- No-
when vehicle was given on hire with its existing
policy, IC cannot avoid its liability.
2013 ACJ 10 (Mad)
HOME
34. Transfer of Vehicle:-

1- Death of the owner of the offending vehicle, prior to
the accident- whether the transferee in possession has
to be deemed to be covered by policy and Tribunal
erred in exonerating the IC from liability-held- yes-
IC held liable- further held that on the death of
owner, transfer of IP is automatic
2003 ACJ 534 (SC), 2002 ACJ 1035 (MAD), 2001 ACJ
567 (GUJ), 2011 ACJ 1717 (ORI), 2014 ACJ 2751
(All)
2- Vehicle which met with an accident is sold of by the
owner in favour of third party- in such case who is
liable to pay amount of compensation?- Held-
registered owner remains owner for the purpose of M.V.
Act, even though under civil law he ceased to be the

owner after the sale- in such situation, both the
persons namely current and old owners, both are held
liable to pay amount of compassion.
2015 ACJ 1352 (AP), 2012 ACJ 2269 (Del)- 2012 ACJ
2319 (P&H), 2015 ACJ 2797 (P&H)- 2011 ACJ 705
(SC) = AIR 2011 SC 682, Pushpa v/s Shakuntala,
relied upon.
But also see- 2006 ACJ 1441(SC)- Tilak
Singh.
3 – Transfer of the vehicle – own damage case – liability
of IC – contention that Section 157 of the M V Act is
not applicable to own damage claim, especially when
the policy had not been transferred in favour of the
transferee-owner – Section 157 would come into play
only in the case of TP claim and shall not apply in
the case of transferee-owner.
2015 ACJ 1703 (P&H).
HOME
35. Post Mortum Report:-

1- Absence of PM report- whether claimants are entitled
to get compensation in absence of PM report- held –
yes- as there are sufficient evidence to prove that
deceased died because of the vehicular accident- non
availability of PM report does not absolve the IC from
its liability
2011 ACJ 2197 (MAD), 2012 AAC 3240.
2- Dismissal of claim petition on the ground that
claimants have not proved the accident by examining
the doctor who had conducted P.M.- Vail?- No- Is the
duty cast upon the Tribunal to issue notice upon the
Doctor and IO, before deciding the petition.- If the
counsel for the claimant has failed to perform his
duty, claimant cannot be made to suffer.
2012 ACJ 1046 (Kar), 2014 ACJ 1479 (P&H)
3- Whether PM report is must to prove accident- Held – No
2012 ACJ 1434 (Ori) Relevant on page No. 1439,
para 1.5
HOME
36. Dishonour of Cheque:-
1- Dishonour of cheque issued towards premium- policy-
cancellation of- liability of IC- IC cancelled the
policy and intimated about it to the owner- whether IC
is liable- held- no
2001 ACJ 638 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2230 (BOM)
2- Insured tendered cheque to Insurer on 23/1/1995,
towards premium - Cover note was issued by the insurer
- On 27/1/1995 accident took place & third party,
suffered severe injuries - The cheque given for
insurance, dishonored - After the date of accident
Insurance Policy was cancelled - However, on
30/1/1995, insured paid cash to insurer - Insurer
contended that a contract of insurance would be valid
only when cheque paid for premium is honoured - On the
dishonor of the cheque the contract being without
consideration, need not be performed - Held, cover-
note was issued and cover-note would come within the
purview of definition of "Certificate of Insurance"
and also an "insurance policy" - It remains valid till
it is cancelled.
2008(3) GLH 791(SC) - Abhaysing Pratapsing
Waghela
3- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147(5), S. 149(1) -
Insurance Act, 1938 - S. 64-VB - Indian Contract Act,
1872 - S. 2, S. 51, S. 124 - Liability of Insurer -
Dishonour of cheque for premium - Cancellation of
Insurance policy by insurer on account of dishonor of
cheque for premium - The fact of cancellation was
informed by Insurance Company to the insured and RTO -
Accident occurred thereafter - Held, Insurance Company
would not be liable to satisfy the claim.
2008 (3) GLH 168 (SC) – Deddappa v/s N.I. Com
4- Dishonour of cheque given for payment of premium of
policy- IC cancelled the policy after the date of
accident - liability of IC- Held -IC liable to satisfy
the award passed by the Tribunal- IC may prosecute its
remedy to recover the amount paid to the claimants
from the insurer.
2012 ACJ 1307 (SC) UIIC v/s Laxmamma. 2013 ACJ
2416 (SC) – N.I. Com v/s Balkar Ram, 2013 ACJ
2247 (Ori)
HOME

37. Pay and Recover:-
2- Order of ‘pay and recover’- whether HC or Tribunal can
direct the IC to pass an order of pay and recover? –
question referred to Larger Bench for consideration
2009 (3) GLH 377 (SC) - N.I. Com v/s Parvathneni.
Please Note:- Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the
said SLP being No.22444 of 2009 on 17/09/2013 (from
the judgment and order dated 12/12/2008 in MACMA
No.1211 of 2007 of the High Court of A.P. at
Hyderabadon 18/09/2013).
3- Respondent No.2 was the owner of a Mini Bus. An
insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle was
sought to be taken by him. For the said purpose, the
second respondent issued a third party cheque towards
payment of insurance premium. The Development Officer
of the appellant by inadvertence issued a cover note.
However, when the said mistake came to his notice, the
respondent No.2 was contacted by the Development
Officer. He was asked to pay the amount of premium. It
was not tendered and in stead the respondent No.2 is
said to have returned the original cover note and took
back the cheque. The original cover note as also all
the duplicate copies thereof was cancelled. The said
insurance cover was issued for the period 3.9.1991 to
2.9.1992. On or about 12.9.1991, the said vehicle met
with an accident. First respondent who suffered an
injury therein filed a claim petition in terms of the
provisions contained in Sec. 166-effect - liability of
insurer when vehicle met with accident within the
period under cover note - held, no premium could be
said to have been paid - no privity of contract
between insurer and insured - Supreme Court in

jurisdiction under Art. 142 of Constitution, directed
insurer to recover the paid compensation from insured-
owner - appeal allowed.
2008(7) SCC 526
the owner
ACJ 1792 (MP)
case [2005 SCC (Cri.) 148].
2006(2) GLH 15 (SC) – N.I.A Com v/s Kusum Rai.
Following Kusum Rai judgment, Delhi High
Court in the case of O I Com. v/s Shahnawaz,
reorted in 2014 ACJ 2124 has held that driver of
offending vehicle was possessing lincence to ply
LMV (Non-transport) but was plying Tata Sumo

registered as Tourist Taxi and, therefore, IC is
6- Order of ‘pay and recover’- whether HC or Tribunal can
direct the IC to pass an order of pay and recover? –
question referred to Larger Bench for consideration
2009 (3) GLH 377 (SC) - N.I. Com v/s Parvathneni
2008(7) SCC 526

the owner
ACJ 1792 (MP)
10- In this case since the person riding the motorcycle at
the time of accident was a minor, the responsibility
for paying the compensation awarded fell on the owner
of the motorcycle. In fact, in the case of Ishwar
Chandra V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2007) 3 AD
(SC) 753], it was held by this Court that in case the
driver of the vehicle did not have a licence at all,
the liability to make payment of compensation fell on
the owner since it was his obligation to take
adequate care to see that the driver had an
appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. Before the
Tribunal reliance was also placed on the decision in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. G. Mohd.
Vani & Ors. [2004 ACJ 1424] and National Insurance Co.
Ltd. V/s. Candingeddawa & Ors. [2005 ACJ 40], wherein
it was held that if the driver of the offending
vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, then the
Insurance Company after paying the compensation amount
would be entitled to recover the same from the owner
of the vehicle- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal quite
rightly saddled the liability for payment of
compensation on the Petitioner and, accordingly,
directed the Insurance Company to pay the awarded
amount to the awardees and, thereafter, to recover the
same from the Petitioner. The said question has been

duly considered by the Tribunal and was correctly
decided. The High Court rightly chose not to interfere
with the same.
2011(6) SCC 425 – Jawahar Singh v/s Bala Jain
11- Death in motor accident - liability of Insurance
Company - Tribunal observed that driver of bus was not
possessing valid driving license - compensation of Rs.
2,68,800 awarded - respondent no. 3 and 4 were driver
and owner of bus - respondent no. 3 and 4 were liable
to make payment - direction issued to appellant/IC to
deposit amount and that it can recover the same from
respondents – appellant/IC deposited necessary amount
- recovery of amount - Execution Petition(EP) filed by
IC- whether civil suit was required to be filed
instead of filing execution petition – held- no -when
such direction to file suit instead of filling EP
issued by Tribunal same is not sustainable- EP is held
to be maintainable- whenever order of ‘pay and
recover’ is passed by Tribunal, then it must be held
to have been done in exercise of inherent power of
Tribunal- Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
in terms whereof, it is not only entitled to determine
the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for
recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of
the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute
between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or
driver of the vehicle involved in the accident
inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a
proceeding-many SC ratios considered.
2009(8) SCC 377 – N.I.A. Com v/s Kusum
12- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - u/s. 165, 149(2), 168, 174
- The Tribunal in interpreting the policy conditions
would apply "the rule of main purpose" and concept of
"fundamental breach" to allow the defences available
to the insurer - Further held that powers of Tribunal
are not restricted to only decide claims between
claimants and insured or insurer and/or driver, it has
also powers to decide the disputes between insured and
insurer and when such dispute is decided, it would be
executable u/S. 174 as it applies to claimants - No
separate proceedings are required - Even when insurer

is held not liable, it will satisfy the award in
favour of claimants and can recover from the insured
u/S. 174 of the Act.- 2004(1) GLH 691(SC)- N.I.A. Com
v/s Swaran Singh.
13- U/s 147- Pay and recover- Guideleine.
2012 AAC 3151(ALLAHBAD). N.I.Co., Varanasi v.s.
Smt. Abhirajji Devi.
14- 'Pay and Recover'- Whether Tribunal can direct the IC
to first pay and then recover the amount of
compensation? Held No-
O.I.Com. v/s K.C. Subramanayam, reported in CDJ
2012 Karnataka HC 339.
15- Execution- whether IC has right to recover an amount
of compassion in the same proceedings or it has to
file the separate suit for recovery? -Held- in the
same proceeding.
2013 ACJ 2233 (P&H)- 2004 ACJ 1093 (SC)- Pramod
Kumar Agrrawal and 2001 ACJ 843 (SC) - Kamla
16- Pay and recover- Accident by negligent driving of
Minor- Liability of Financier – order of pay and
recover only against owner/financier and not against
minor
2014 ACJ 660 (Del), IC is held liable to pay and
recover as same is liable under the contractual
liability. 2014 ACJ 2298 (Del)
17- When an order of pay and recover is passed against IC-
in such situation IC is said to be aggrieved party-
held- no- SC ratios followed
2011 ACJ 2498 para -12
18- Pay and recover order by Tribunal when deceased was
admittedly a gratuitous passenger- whether valid-
Held- yes- as gratuitous passenger is held to third
party. 2012 ACJ 1661(J&K).
19- Which directions are required to be ordered in the
operative portion of the award, while passing and
order of Pay and Recover?- Directions given.
Pramod kumar Agrawal 2004 ACJ 1903 (SC) also see
2015 ACJ 1602 (Bom).
HOME

38. Stepped into the shoe of the owner:-
1- New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand Mukhi
and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417, wherein, the
son of the owner was driving the vehicle, who died in
the accident, was not regarded as third party. In the
said case the court held that neither Section 163-A
nor Section 166 would be applicable.
2- The deceased was traveling on Motor Cycle, which he
borrowed from its real owner for going from Ilkal to
his native place Gudur. When the said motor cycle was
proceeding on Ilkal-Kustagl, National Highway, a
bullock cart proceeding ahead of the said motor cycle
carrying iron-sheet,which suddenly stopped and
consequently deceased who was proceeding on the said
motor cycle dashed bullock cart. Consequent to the
aforesaid incident, he sustained fatal injuries over
his vital part of body and on the way to Govt.
Hospital, Ilkal, he died.
It was forcefully argued by the counsel appearing
for the respondent that the claimants are not the
`third party', and therefore, they are not entitled to
claim any benefit under Section 163-A of the MVA. In
support of the said contention, the counsel relied on
the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi, (2008) 5 SCC 736;
and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi and
Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 417.
In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein, it
has been categorically held that in a case where third
party is involved, the liability of the insurance
company would be unlimited. It was also held in the
said decision that where, however, compensation is
claimed for the death of the owner or another
passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance
being governed by the contract qua IP, the claim of
the claimant against the insurance company would

depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said
decision that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said
to have any application in respect of an accident
wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is
involved. The decision further held that the question
is no longer res integra. The liability under section
163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a
person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient,
with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the
deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of
Section 163-A of the MVA. Apex Court held - “the ratio
of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the
facts of the present case. In the present case, the
deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in
question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real
owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of
the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised
to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore,
he would step into the shoes of the owner of the
motorbike.”
2009 (13) SCC 710 – Ningmma v/s United India
3- U/s 163A- deceased stepped into the shoes of the
owner- IC held not liable-
2012 ACJ 391
4- u/s 163A- accident between scooter and car- scooter
belonged to the brother of claimant- whether claimant
is entitled for compensation u/s 163A?- Held- No- As
claimant has stepped into the shoe of owner- IC cannot
be held liable- Sc judgments followed-
2012 ACJ 1329 (P&H)
5- Whether a claim petition preferred u/s 163A of the Act
is maintainable when person ridding a motor cycle
borrowed it from its owner- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1472- SC Judgments in the cases of
Sadanand Mukhi, Ningamma and Rajni Devi followed.
2016 ACJ 1072 (Del)

6- Borrower of the vehicle- met with an accident as
scooter slipped- no other vehicle involved- Whether in
such situation, IC is liable to pay amount of
compensation?- Held- No.
2014 ACJ 604 (P&H).
7- Borrower of the vehicle- met with an accident as
scooter slipped- no other vehicle involved- said
vehicle is owned by the mother of the scooterist-
claim petition u/s 163A- owner had taken personal
accident cover of Rs.1,00,000/- Whether under this
situation, IC is held liable to pay amount of
compassion?- Held- but only upto Rs.1,00,000/-
2014 ACJ 604 (P&H) HN-B.
But see 2016 ACJ 1050 (P&H)
8- Claim petition u/s 163A of MV Act by L.R. Of deceased
who stepped into the shoe of the owner are entitled
for compensation?- Held- No. At the most they are
entitled for Rs.50,000/- under Section 140.
2014 ACJ 2561 (P&H), three SC Judgments followed.
- Eshwarappa, 2010 ACJ 2444 (SC), Ningamma, 2009
ACJ 2020 (SC) and Rajni Devi, 2008 ACJ 1441
(SC). 2016 ACJ 250 (P&H)
9- Personal accident- deceased stepped into the shoes of
the owner – whether such person is entitled to claim
any amount under the head of “Personal Accident'?-
Held- No.- Such benefit can only be availed by the
owner himself and not any other person who stepped
into his shoes.
Further held that when accident occurred
only because of the sole negligence of the
deceased, LR of deceased are not entitled for any
compensation u/s 163A but under Section 140 of
the Act.
2014 ACJ 2803(P&H), 2015 ACJ 2642 (P&H)
HOME

39. Cover Note:-
2008(7) SCC 526
2- Insured tendered cheque to Insurer on 23/1/1995,
towards premium - Cover note was issued by the insurer
- On 27/1/1995 accident took place & third party,
suffered severe injuries - The cheque given for
insurance, dishonored - After the date of accident
Insurance Policy was cancelled - However, on
30/1/1995, insured paid cash to insurer - Insurer
contended that a contract of insurance would be valid
only when cheque paid for premium is honoured - On the
dishonor of the cheque the contract being without
consideration, need not be performed - Held, cover-
note was issued and cover-note would come within the
purview of definition of "Certificate of Insurance"
and also an "insurance policy" - It remains valid till
it is cancelled.

2008(3) GLH 791(SC) - Abhaysing Pratapsing
Waghela
3- Cover note- proposal Form was submitted to IC on
30.12.2002 at 11.11 a.m.-- IC issued cover note
mentioning that risk was undertaken from 31.12.2002 –
whether IC is liable- held- no- when there is specific
mention with respect to the effective date of policy,
it starts from 31.12.2002- accident occurred on
30.12.2002 at 8 p.m.- held IC is not liable
2012 ACJ 131- 2009 (3) 155 PLR 65 (SC) -Oriental
Ins. Co. v/s Porselvi -followed
4- Cover Note- IC did not produce any ledger or other
evidence to prove that on the date of accident premium
was not paid- Whether IC is liable- Held- Yes-
2012 ACJ 1497 (MP), 2016 ACJ 851 (P&H)
5- Dispute with regard to Cover-note – IC dispute it's
liability on the ground that Cover-note is forged -
held – in summary proceeding, Tribunal cannot decide
said issue.
2013 ACJ 2245 (Pat), 2013 ACJ 2542 (P&H), 2016
ACJ 851 (P&H)
6- Policy – commencement of - premium accepted on 3.5.97-
but cover note specified the effective date of
commencement as 5.5.97, as 3.5.97 was holiday- IC
contended that at the date of accident i.e.4.5.97,
there was not effective policy in existence- whether
IC is liable- held- yes- contract of insurance comes
in to effect from the date of acceptance of premium-
more particularly when IC had received the premium
prior to the date of accident
2011 ACJ 1728 (BOM)
7- Cover Note – interpolation – accident occurred on
24.12.1999 at 7.15 pm – cover note has been
interpolated as 21.40 pm – when time is mentioned in
hours there was no necessity to write pm – IC
manipulated the time of original cover note and,
therefore, IC held liable.
2015 ACJ 2051.
HOME

40. Hypothecation:-
1- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 94, 95, 145, 147,
149(2), 155 - truck was insured with the appellant in
the name of the husband of respondent - truck was
hypothecated to a Bank - renewal of contract of
insurance used to be done by the Bank - no step was
taken either by the Bank or the legal heirs of
deceased to get the registration of vehicle
transferred in their names - vehicle met with accident
- driver died - driver's legal heirs filed an
application for grant of compensation against the
widow of the deceased and the appellant-Insurance
Company - Workmen's Compensation Commissioner directed
payment of compensation to widow of truck driver -
High Court dismissed appeal - appeal against - held,
one of the grounds which is available to the Insurance
Company for denying its statutory liability is that
the policy is void having been obtained by reason of
non-disclosure of a material fact or by a
representation of fact which was false in some
material particular - once a valid contract is entered
into, only because of a mistake, the name of original
owner not been mentioned in the certificates of
registration, it cannot be said that the contract
itself is void - unless it was shown that in obtaining
the said contract, a fraud has been practiced - no
particulars of fraud pleaded - no infirmity in High
Court's judgment
2009(1) SCC 558 –U.I.I v/s Santro Devi
2- Hypothecation- finance company is not liable to pay
compensation.
2015 ACJ 1 (SC) – HDFC Bank Resham (FB), 2015 ACJ
1513 (SC) – Central Bank v/s Jagbir Singh. 2016
ACJ 1112 (CHH) – Judgement of Godavari Finance
Com v/s Degala Satyanarayanamma, reported in 2008
ACJ 1612 (SC)
HOME

41. Transfer of the Vehicle:-
1- Accident- insurance- damage to the vehicle- transfer
of the vehicle- liability of the IC – Transferee never
got policy transferred in his name- Transferee
contended that transfer of ownership takes place by
delivery of goods and by passing of consideration
under the Sale of Goods Act- u/s 50 of the MV Act,
transfer of registration is required- Held- transfer
of vehicle is different from transfer of registration
of vehicle- Right to enforce an obligation under the
policy against IC could arise for the transferee only
by obtaining a transfer of policy- failure to obtain a
transfer of policy may not affect the right of third
party under the Act but will have bearing on the right
of the transferee himself- claim by transferee for
damage to his vehicle is maintainable against the IC,
without getting the policy transferred in his name is
not maintainable.
2012 ACJ 1110 (P&H)
2- Transfer of vehicle- IC dispute it's liability on the
ground that insurer had transfer his vehicle and
obligation to indemnify the insured arises when
insured is held vicariously liable for negligence of
driver- whether sustainable?- Held- No. - IP stands,
deemed to be transfer in the name of transferee- IC is
liable.
2013 ACJ 2235 (Mad)
3- U/s 157(1) - Transfer of vehicle- Deemed transfer of
certificate of insurance- Whether IC can be held
liable? -Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 818 (Ker)
4- Transfer of the vehicle- certificate of insurance –
once possession is taken over by the transferee along
with certificate of insurance, IC can not evade it's
liability to pay compensation.
2014 ACJ 1266 (SC) – Mallamma v/s NI Com, 2014
ACJ 2751 (All)
HOME

42. Public Place u/s 2 (34):-
1- U/s 147(1) and 2 (34)- public place and land abutting
public road- whether the land abutting public road to
which public has free and easy access is a public
place, irrespective of the fact that it stood recorded
in the name of a private individual- Held- Yes- SC
decisions referred to
2012 ACJ 1175 (Ori), 2014 ACJ 576 (Kar), 2014 ACJ
1312 (Raj)
2- Public place- agriculture field is public place?- Held
- Yes
2013 ACJ 30 (AP), 2016 ACJ 704 (Ker)
HOME
43. Militant Attack- Hijack-Terrorist Attack
Murder, Heart Attack, Lightning –
Arising out of Accident:-
1- Intentional murder by use of Motor Vehicle- Whether
the claim petition is maintainable? - Held- No- SC
decisions referred to.
2012 ACJ 1188 (Chht), 2016 ACJ 523 (P&H) -
[Judgment of Rita Devi v/s NIA Com, 2000 ACJ 801
(SC) followed.
2- Murder- Application u/s 163A- whether maintainable?-
Held -yes.
2012 ACJ 1512 (Ker)
3- Bus came in contact with live wire- Claimant died
because of electrocution- whether IC is liable?- Held
- yes.
SC judgment followed. - 2012 AAC 2886.
4- Claimant sustained fracture when he was trying to
replace punctured tyre and when jack suddenly slipped
and leg of the claimant is crushed - Claimant
preferred an application u/s 163A- Dismissed by
Tribunal by holding that accident had not taken place
during driving of the vehicle. Sustainable- Held- No.
It is not necessary that vehicle should be in running
condition when accident occurred. Even if it was
stationary, IC is liable to pay compensation.
2013 ACJ 1561, 2016 ACJ 345 (P&H)

5- Militant Attack- Hijack-Terrorist Attack- Fatal in the
motor vehicle- whether claim petition is maintainable
in such cases?- Held- No.
2014 ACJ 1086, 2016 ACJ 712 (T & A)
But contrary views taken in the case of
death of security personnel- 2014 ACJ 1353 (Ass),
2015 ACJ 2814 (Tri)
Bomb Blast in Bus, resulting death of
several passengers- Whether a claim petition u/s
163A is maintainable?- Held- Yes, as accident
arose out of the use of the motor vehicle- 2014
ACJ 2129 (All)
6- Deceased died because he was crushed by concrete
pillar, which fell no him as it was dashed by the
offending vehicle- Whether IC of offending vehicle
liable to pay compensation?- Held- Yes.
2012 AAC 3124.
7- U/s 163A- deceased died due to heart attack- whether
claimants are entitled for compensation u/s 163A of
the MV Act?- Held- No- in absence of any evidence to
the effect that deceased died due to heavy burden or
there any other sustainable ground-
2012 ACJ 1134 (AP)- Murder – 2012 ACJ (Ker)
Culpable Homicide- Altercation between
conductor and passenger- conductor pushed
passenger out of bus – passenger crushed in the
said bus – conductor prosecuted u/s 324 & 304 of
IPC- whether in such situation, since driver
failed in his duty to stop the bus, he is liable
for accident. Owner of bus vicariously held
liable and IC is is directed to indemnify owner
of the bus – further held that accident was
arising out of use of motor vehicle.
2014 ACJ 2136 – U I I Com. v/s Ramani C.K. (Ker)
8- Intentional murder by use of Motor Vehicle- Whether
the claim petition is maintainable? - Held- No- SC
decisions referred to.
2012 ACJ 1188 (Chht).
9- Accident occurred when deceased tried to board the bus
which did not stop at the decided destination and

deceased ran after the bus to board but driver drove
off – deceased chase the bus in a Jeep, made the
driver to stop the bus and had an altercation with the
driver while standing on the middle of the road – bus
driver while sitting in the bus pushed deceased and
deceased fell down and was ultimately crushed by truck
coming from other direction – IC sought to be
exonerated on the count that accident did not arise
out of use of vehicle- Whether sustainable?- Held- No.
2015 ACJ 1400 (Ker)
10- Presumption u/s 108 of Evidence Act can be made
applicable and claim petition can be allowed on such
presumption?- Held – No.
2015 ACJ 1883 (All).
11- When vehicle was requisitioned by the State for police
duty and in the militant/terrorist attack occupant
sustains fatal injuries – whether under these
circumstances State can be held responsible – Held –
Yes.
2015 ACJ 2862 (Gua)- judgment of SC in the case
of NIC v/s Deepa Devi, 2008 ACJ 705 (SC) relied
upon.
12– Deceased died due to lightning – whether LRs of
deceased are entitled to claim compensation under the
M V Act? - Held- No. They are required to file claim
petition under the provision of the Workmen's
Compensation Act.
2016 ACJ 1202 (AP)
HOME
44. Dismiss for Default:-

1- Dismiss for Default- DD- whether claim petition
preferred under the MV Act can be dismissed for
default after the framing the issues? - Held- No-
Tribunal is required to decide the case on merits.
2012 ACJ 1261 (Guj) Bharatbhai Chaudhary v/s
Malek Rafik, 2014 ACJ 1382 (Chh)
HOME

45. Burden of Proof:-
1- U/s 149(2) (a) (ii) and 149 (4)- driving licence-
policy- willful breach- burden of proof- on whom- Held
on IC- it is for the IC to prove that driver did not
hold the DL to drive the class of vehicle or DL was
fake and breach was conscious and willful on the part
of insured to avoid its liability.
2012 ACJ 1268 (Del). Various SC decisions
referred to.
2- Burden of proof on IC– IC contended that driver of
offending vehicle did not possess valid licence- IC
did not issued any notice to owner, driver to produce
DL nor made any application to issue summons to RT
officer-
2012 ACJ 1484 ((MP)
HOME
45A. Stationary Vehicle:-
1- It is the case of the IC that truck was standing and
at that point, jeep dashed in the rear portion of the
Truck and therefore, it is not liable- whether
sustainable?- Held- No- Even if it is presumed that
truck was stationary, IC of truck is liable as driver
of the truck is held negligent to the extent of 25%-
various SC judgments followed.
2012 ACJ 1390 (Raj) also see 2013 ACJ 1646 also
see 2013 ACJ 2295 (Kar) also see 2013 ACJ 2399
(P&H), 2013 ACJ 2785 (P&H)- See also Section 122
of the M.V. Act., 1986 ACJ 1070 (Guj), 2014 ACJ
1476
2- Parked vehicle in the middle of the road- Stationary
vehicle.
2014 ACJ 1216
3- Stationary vehicle- parked in the middle of the road
without headlights or indication light – deceased died
as he dashed on the rear portion of the said
stationary vehicle- whether IC of said vehicle can
avoid its liability ? Held- No.
2013 ACJ 56 (Del), 2013 ACJ 1960 (AP), 2013 ACJ
2781 (P&H), 1986 ACJ 1070 (Guj)

4- Truck driver applied sudden brakes and car following
said truck dashed into iron plates protreuding out of
its rear portion resulting in death of driver – both
the drivers held equally negligent in causing
accident.
2015 ACJ 2664 (Guj)
5- Stationary vehicle – vehicle was in possession of
police – whether police can be said to be owner and IC
of said vehicle can be exonerated on that count?- Held
– No.
2016 ACJ 369 (Raj)
HOME
46. Tractor-Trolley:-
1- Tractor-trailer- Tractor-trolley- worker sustained
injuries- IC seeks to avoid its liability on the
ground that policy does not cover risk of owner and
labourers- whether sustainable- Held- No- Section 2
(44) and 2 (46) indicates that when trailer is
attached to tractor, it becomes goods vehicle and
therefore, IC is liable.
2012 ACJ 1408 (Kar), 2012 ACJ 2737 (All) SC
judgements followed. But also see 2013 ACJ 1496
wherein it is held that Tractor and Trolley are
two separate vehicles and if Trolley attached
with tractor is not insured and deceased was
travelling in the Trolley attached with tractor,
Insurance Company is not liable.
M.V. Act- Section 61, 146, 147- Tractor-
trolley- It is no doubt true that trolley is
required separate registration for commercial
use/purpose u/s 61 but as per Section 146, it
does not provide for separate insurance of
trolley. Once trolley is attached to the tractor,
it becomes one vehicle- IC of tractor is held
liable to pay compensation. - 2014 ACJ 1727 (All)
– UII v/s Suman (Rakesh Tiwari and Anil Kumar
Sharma JJ), 2015 ACJ 1078 (Chh), 2015 ACJ
1037(Del)
but also see 2014 ACJ 1583 (P&H) – NII Com
v/s Sohan lal.

2- Tractor- trolley- TP risk- Claimant was traveling in
Jeep- IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground
that Trolley was not insured- whether sustainable-
Held- no- claimant was TP for the tractor and even if
Trolley was not insured, IC is liable as addition of
trolley to tractor will not make any difference to the
claimant as he is TP for tractor
2012 ACJ 177.
3- Mudguard of tractor- Tractor was meant for
agricultural purpose- admittedly it was not used for
agricultural purpose when accident occurred- whether
IC is liable?- held – No.
2012 ACJ 1738. But order of pay and recover can
be passed – 2015 ACJ 1677 (Mad).
4- Tractor-trolley- When trolley is attached with the
tractor is one vehicle-
2012 ACJ 2022 and 2117 (CHH)
5- Tractor-trailer – Tractor-trolley- Goods vehicle -
Additional premium of 7 passengers paid under the
workmen compensation act – employee of hirer sustained
injuries – IC disputed its liability – Policy covers
vehicle as well as the employees engaged for its
operation – Under this situation, IC held liable to
pay amount of compensation.
2013 ACJ 994.
6- Labourer travelling on Tractor succumbed to injuries
sustained by him- IC disputed its liability on the
ground that deceased was a gratuitous passenger as no
trolley was attached with the tractor- whether
sustainable?- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 2034 (ALL) – SC judgment reported in
1987 ACJ 411, Skandia Ins. v/s Kokilaben
Chandravadan relied upon.
7- Tractor-trailer – IC disputed it's liability on the
ground that there sitting capacity of only one person
and therefore, claim could not have travelled in the
said tractor-trailer as labourer- whether sustainable?
- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 2331 (Kar)- Death of coolie travelling
on the mud-guard- 2013 ACJ 2353 (Mad) -

8- Tractor-trailer- Agricultural purpose- commercial
purpose- Difference between.
2014 ACJ 1254 (SC)- Fahim Ahmed v/s UII Com.,
2014 ACJ 2843 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 2083 (AP)
9- Tractor-trolley – Agricultural purpose - when accident
occurred sand was loaded on it – whether IC can avoid
its liability on the count that same was not used for
agricultural purpose?- Held No.- Unless same is proved
by leading cogent evidence, it not be held so.
2014 ACJ 1966 (All)
10- Tractor- trolley- TP risk- Claimant was traveling in
Jeep- IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground
that Trolley was not insured- whether sustainable-
Held- no- claimant was TP for the tractor and even if
Trolley was not insured, IC is liable as addition of
trolley to tractor will not make any difference to the
claimant as he is TP for tractor.
2012 ACJ 177.
HOME
47. Registration of Vehicle/Number Plate:-

1- Registration number of offending vehicle not disclosed
at the time of filling of FIR- driver of offending
vehicle, convicted by criminal court- vehicle number,
disclosed afterwards does not lead to the conclusion
that there is collusion between claimant and driver of
offending vehicle.
2012 ACJ 2176 (Del), Delay in filing FIR – 2015
ACJ 1483 (Raj).
2- Use of vehicle without the registration certificate-
temporary registration expired on the date of
accident- owner is not entitled to get anything under
the Own Damage Claim.
2014 ACJ 2421 (SC).
3- Registration Certificate- Expiry of- liability of IC-
non renewal if RC on the date of accident – same is
not illegality but irregularity and same will not
absolve IC from its liability.
2014 ACJ 2399 (Kant) But contrary view is taken
in 2014 ACJ 2665 (MP)

4- U/s 39 – Registration of vehicle – temporary
registration – expired before the date of accident –
under this circumstances, IC has to prove breach of
terms of Policy as envisaged in Section 149(2) of the
MV Act- if IC fails to prove this, it liable to pay
compensation first and then recover from Driver/owner.
2015 ACJ 236 (Kar)
HOME
48. Stolen Vehicle:-

1- Stolen vehicle- who was driving the vehicle not known-
vehicle recovered after the accident- whether in such
situation, IC can be held liable?- Held- Yes.
2014 ACJ 1165, also see Note No.375
2- Stolen property- fake registration number - number
plate- liability of IC- guideline-
2014 ACJ 1706 (Del)- UII Com. v/s Amaratta.
3- While searching for his lost/stolen jeep, owner meet
with the same jeep- whether IC can be held responsible
to pay compensation in such facts?- Held- No. As
additional premium was not paid.
2015 ACJ 107 (Guj) – OIC v/s Ganeshbhai
Gautambhai
HOME
49. Hit and Run - Under Section 161:-

1- Hit and Run case- claimant is entitled for only
Rs.25,000/-, as claim petition is not maintainable
against the unknown vehicle.
2011 ACJ 552 (SC)- Saroj v/s Het Lal. But in 2014
ACJ 859 (Guj) it is held that joint tortfeasor is
not required to be joined. (Jst.S.H. Vora,
Mayaben Ramanlal Jaiswal v/s Rajubhai Chimanlal
Jaiswal, FA 5431 to 5434 of 2008, dated
09/05/2013)
2- Whether a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable when
award is already passed u/s 161 of the Act?- Held-
Yes.
2012 ACJ 2314 (Chh).

3- U/s 161(3) (4), 163, 165 and 166(1) of MV Act – Hit
and Run case - fixed compensation of Rs.25,000/-
claimant has not filed an application under the scheme
framed u/s 161 – whether an application for fixed
compensation of Rs.25,000/- is maintainabile before
the MACT?- Held- Yes.
2015 ACJ 203 (AP)
HOME
50. Third Party:-
1- Deceased boarded in wrong rout bus- asked conductor to
stop the bus- before the bus was stopped he jumped
from the bus and died- whether such person can be said
to be T.P? - Held- Yes-
212 AAC 2584 (Del)
2- Pedestrian hit by truck which had 'Act Policy'- TP
risk- tribunal directed IC to pay only 1.5 lac and
remaining amount of compensation was directed to be
paid by owner-driver- Whether sustainable?- Held- No.
-Since, higher premium had been paid for 'liability to
public risk i.e. third part- Though it was 'Act
Policy', IC is held liable to pay amount of
compensation.
2012 ACJ 2667- SC Judgments followed.
3- Mini bus hit pedestrian- Tribunal held that same was
insured as goods vehicle and exonerated IC- Whether
order is sustainable?- Held- No.- As claimant was TP
for the minibus and it does not make any difference if
the the vehicle was goods vehicle or passenger
vehicle.
2013 ACJ 1956 (All)
4- Deceased a TP- comprehensive policy- liability of IC-
after new act liability of IC is unlimited towards TP
2011 ACJ 1860 (RAJ)
HOME

51. Disbursement and Apportionment:-
1- Order of investment by the Tribunal after passing the
award- Tribunal cannot mechanically pass the order of
investment in cases other than minors, illiterate and
widows.
2012 (1) GLH 442 - A.V. Padma.
2- In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat
High Court in Muljibhal Ajarambhai Harijan v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1982 (1) 23 GLR 756, Supreme
Court offered the following guidelines
"(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of
minors, invariably order the amount of
compensation awarded to the minor invested in
long term fixed deposits at least till the date
of the minor attaining majority. The expenses
incurred by the guardian or next friend may
however be allowed to be withdrawn;
(ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the
Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set
out in (1) above, but if lump sum payment is
required for effecting purchases of any movable
or immovable property, such as, agricultural
implements, rickshaw etc., to earn a living, the
Tribunal may consider such a request after making
sure that the amount is actually spent for the
purpose and the demand is not a rouge to withdraw
money;
(iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the
Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the
procedure set out at (i) above unless it is
satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing,
that the whole or part of the amount is required
for expanding and existing business or for
purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii)
above for earning his livelihood, in which case
the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is
invested for the purpose for which it is demanded
and paid;
(iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal
may resort to the procedure indicated in (1)
above, subject to the relaxation set out in (ii)

and (iii) above, if having regard to the age,
fiscal background and strata of society to which
the claimant belongs and such other
considerations, the Tribunal in the larger
interest of the claimant and with a view to
ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded
to him thinks it necessary to do order;
(v) In the case of widows the Claims Tribunal should
invariably follow the procedure set out in (i)
above;
(vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is
necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied
about the same, which shall be recorded in
writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is
necessary for incurring the expenses for such
treatment;
(vii) In all cases in which Investment in long term
fixed deposits is made it should be on condition
that the Bank- will not permit any loan or
advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the
amount invested is paid monthly directly to the
claimant or his guardian, as the case may be;
(viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the
claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case
of an emergency. To meet with such a contingency,
if the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims
Tribunal may invest it in more than one Fixed
Deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R. can be
liquidated."
These guidelines should be borne in mind by
the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in
accident cases.
AIR 1994 SC 1631- Mrs. Susamma Thomas. Also
see Jaiprakash 2010 (2) GLR 1716
3- Apportionment of inter se liability in an order passed
u/s 140 of the Act- whether tribunal was justified in
apportioning the liability between the joint
tortfeasor?- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 959.
4- Apportionment of inter se liability in an order passed
u/s 140 of the Act- whether tribunal was justified in

apportioning the liability between the joint
tortfeasor?- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 959.
5- U/s 168- compensation- apportionment- widow, father
and mother- apportionment made in the ratio of 2:1:1-
deceased was aged about 33 years- Tribunal awarded
multiplier of 14- contention that father and mother
(aged above 65 years) would entitled for multiplier of
7 only- in that view of the matter, apportionment is
held to be valid and proper.
2012 ACJ 1093 (Ker)
6- Apportionment of inter se liability- whether tribunal
was justified in apportioning the liability between
the joint tortfeasor?- Held- No.
2015 ACJ 1441 (SC) – khenyei v/s NIA Com.(FB).
See also 2013 CJ 926 & 976.
HOME
52 FIR, Charge sheet, Involvement of

Vehicle, Identity of Vehicle:-
1- Identification of vehicle- In FIR, offending vehicle
is described as Blue Colour bike whereas driver-owner
sought to avoid its liability on the count that bike
was of Red Colour- whether sustainable? -Held- No. SC
Judgments followed.
2012 ACJ 2529 (MAD).
2- Delay in filling of FIR- Whether on that count, claim
petition can be dismissed- Held- No.- Delay itself is
not sufficient to hold that claim petition is bogus.
2012 AAC 3334. - U.I.I. Com. v/s N. Srinivas.,
2014 ACJ 1419 (AP)
3- Involvement of the vehicle- Delay in filling FIR-
whether it can be the sole basis for arriving at the
conclusion the offending vehicle is planted? - Held-
No.- When chargesheet is filled, it cannot be doubted.
2013 ACJ 2376 (AP)
4- Whether filing of an FIR is sine qua none for filing
claim petition.- Held- No.
2014 ACJ 469 (Mad), 2014 ACJ 585 (Chh)

5- FIR- ordinarily averments made in the FIR would not be
admissible as evidence per se but when claimant has
produced it to prove his case, contents of such FIR
admissible.
2014 ACJ 1075
6- Whether mere filling of Chargesheet for offences
punishable u/s 3 and 122 of the Act against the driver
of the offending vehicle leads to the conclusion that
driver did not possess a licence and owner has
intentional breached the term sof the Policy. - Held-
No.
2013 ACJ 1501.
7- IC took defence that driver of the offending vehicle
was not possessing valid licence- Whether a criminal
case filed under section 3 and 18 of the M..V. Act is
sufficient to hold that driver of the offending
vehicle was not possessing valid licence? -Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1758 (MP)
8- Whether filing of Chargesheet against the driver u/s 3
and 181 of the MV Act, would lead to the conclusion
that driver was not hold the licence. Held- No. Unless
it is proved by leading cogent evidence by IC, it not
be presumed by Tribunal.
2013 ACJ 2539 (AP).
HOME
53. Necessary Party:-
1- Whether the driver of the offending vehicle is
required to be joined as party opponent in each case?-
Held- No- in absence of non-joinder of driver, entire
proceeding shall not vitiated, as owner of the vehicle
is joined.
2008 ACJ 1964 – Machindranath Kernath v/s D.S.
Mylarappa. - 2013 ACJ 109 (Bom)
2- Non joinder of other tortfeasor- whether mandatory? -
Held- No.
2014 ACJ 589 (Bom)- Oriental Insurance v/s Meena
Variyal, reported in 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC)
3- Whether the driver of the offending vehicle is
required to be joined as party opponent in each case?-

Held- No- in absence of non-joinder of driver, entire
proceeding shall not vitiated, as owner of the vehicle
is joined.
2008 ACJ 1964 – Machindranath Kernath v/s D.S.
Mylarappa. - 2013 ACJ 109 (Bom)
HOME
54. Conductor’s Licence:-

1- Conductor's licence- conductor sustain injuries while
his was in the bus and working as conductor-
conductor's licence had expired and not renewed-
liability of IC- IC cannot be held responsible.
2013 ACJ 397 (Kar)- SC judgments followed.
HOME
55. Succession Certificate:-

1- Whether on the basis of succession certificate,
brother's son of deceased gets right to file an
application under the Act for getting compensation-
Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1176 (J&K).
Whether on the natural death of the one of
the joint claimants, succession certificate is
required to produced so as to enable Tribunal to
pass an order of disbursement of the awarded
amount, falling in the share of deceased
claimant?- Held- No.
2014 ACJ 891 (MP).
To get awarded amount, L.R. Are not required
to get succession certificate- SC judgment in the
case of Rukhsana v/s Nazrunnisa, 2000 (9) SCC 240
followe.
2014 ACJ 2501 (Raj)
HOME

56. Damage to property:-
1- Damage to property – principles of assessment – India
and Foreign law discussed.
2016 ACJ 1134 (Ker)
1A- Claim petition for damage to the property- death of
elephant- Tribunal awarded amount of compensation of
Rs.5,39,100 including RS.1,20,000 for loss of income
from elephant- Held such an award is not justified
when claim petition is preferred for damage to the
property- Rs.1,20,000/- reduced by HC.
2013 ACJ 1279 (Ker)
2- Damage to the property- Tenant filed claim petition-
Tribunal dismissed it on the ground that tenant is not
the owner and eviction petition is pending- Whether
sustainable- Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1292 (Raj)
3- Damage to property- Truck dashed with auto rickshaw-
IC of truck liable to pay only Rs.6,000/- under the
Act but Tribunal can direct the IC to pay entire
amount and in return IC may recover the additional
amount from the driver and owner of Truck.
2013 ACJ 1830 (Jar)
4- Damage to goods loaded in the Truck- Whether IC is
liable to make good to such damage?- Held- No.- IC is
liable to make good for damage to the property of TP.
2014 ACJ 915 (HP).
5- Damage to property - limits of liability of IC – Jeep
sustained damage due to negligent driving of the
driver of the Truck – Truck was covered under the
comprehensive policy- Whether IC of truck is liable to
pay compensation to the owner of Jeep in excess of
Rs.6,000/-? - Held- No.
2015 ACJ 1579 (P&H)
6- Damage to vehicle – claim for compensation from
tortfeasors, held, maintainable even if owner of
vehicle has received any amount from IC under
comprehensive IP.
2015 (2) GLR 1446 – UII Com v/s Hasumatiben
Kanubhai Patel.

7- Tortfeasour gave in writing on the chit to claimant
that he would pay for the damage but later on refused
to pay – claimant filed civil suit on the basis of
such writing- whether civil suit is maintainable?-
Held- No. As provided u/s 16591) of the M. V. Act.
2016 ACJ 141 (Ker)
HOME
57. Settlement:-
1- Claim petition withdrawn under the belief that as per
the settlement all amount would be paid but same was
not paid after the withdrawal of the claim petition.-
Whether the fresh claim petition is bare as per the
principles of the res judicata? - Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1361 (Raj).
Same principle would apply if calim petition
preferred u/s 166 is withdrawn (even if without
premission to file a petition u/s 163A) and fresh
petition is filed u/s 163A of the M V Act. -
2016 ACJ 833 (P&H)
1-A Claimant sustained injuries and filed claim petition –
same was partly allowed – claimant subsequently
expired – his LR filed another claim petition claiming
loss of dependency- whether second petition is barred
under the principle of res judicata?- Held- No.
2016 ACJ 790 (Kar)
2- Settlement- Several claim petitions at two different
places- settlement arrived at place 'A'- IC disputing
its liability before the Tribunal at place 'B'-
whether sustainable- Held- No.- Principle of estoppal
u/s 115 of evidence act would apply.
2014 ACJ 1511 (Del).'
HOME

58. Mediclaim:-
1- Mediclaim – when certain amount is paid under the
mediclaim policy, claimant can claim the said amount
the claim petition. - Held- No.
2013 ACJ 1437 (Mad), 2013 ACJ 2366 (Del), 2013
ACJ 2382 (Del), 2002 ACJ 1441 – Patricia Jean
Mahajan, 2013 ACJ, 2014 ACJ 320 (Del)
2- Mediclaim- claimant is only entitled for the amount of
premium paid by him and not the entire amount received
by him under the Mediclaim.
2013 ACJ 2609 (Del) N.I.Com. v/s R.K. Jain
HOME
59. Did not Suffer Financial Loss/Government

Servant:-
1- Though claim did not suffer any financial loss due to

vehicular injuries sustained by him, Apex Court has
granted compensation under the head of 'Loss of
Earning Capacity and Future Loss of Income'.
2013 ACJ 1459 (SC) – V. Sathu v/s P. Ganapathi
(Relied upon Ajay Kumar v/s Raj Kumar)
2- Injury Government servant- suffered 70% disablement
and, therefore, tendered VRS- awarded Rs.30 lacs by
the High Court.
2014 ACJ 442(MP),
Constable in Railway Police - 2016 ACJ 1117
(P&H) – Raj Kumar v/s Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC)
followed.
HOME

60. Railway:-
1- Unmanned level crossing- accident by Train- whether
Rail authority is liable to pay compensation- Held-
Yes.
2013 ACJ 1653.
Requisition/Seizure of Vehicle by Government:-
2- Requisition of vehicle- IC disputed its liability on
the ground that the vehicle which met with an accident
was being used by Police department and deceased who
was plying the said vehicle was not employee of the
owner- neither party claimed that vehicle was
requisitioned from owner by state- under these
circumstances, IC held liable.
2013 ACJ 2065 (JHR), 2014 ACJ 1997 (Bih), 2014
ACJ 1269 (SC) – Purnya v/s State of Assam
Also see – when vehicle was requisitioned by
state for police duty and in the
militant/terrorist attack occupant sustains fatal
injuries – whether under these circumstances,
State can be held responsible – Held – Yes.
2015 ACJ 2862 (Gua)- judgment of SC in the
case of NIC v/s Deepa Devi, 2008 ACJ 705 (SC)
relied upon.
3- Jeep- Seized for alleged violation of NDPS Act- While
jeep was being taken for production- during transit
jeep capsized- whether owner can be held liable?-
Held- No- As owner had no control over the jeep.
2013 ACJ 721 (Ker) – SC judgment followed.
4- Towing of vehicle- Rickshaw was being town by and jeep
and truck dashed with rickshaw- whether jeep driver
can be held liable?- Held -Yes
2013 ACJ 595
HOME

61. Overloading:-
1- Carrying more passenger than the seating capacity-
Whether IC can avoid its liability on the count- Held-
No.
2013 ACJ 2694 – SC judgment,- B.V. Nagaraju v/s
O.I. Com, reported in 1996 ACJ 1178 relied upon.
2- Breach of policy and permit- overloading- order of pay
and recover passed.
2014 ACJ 385 (Mad).
3- Overloading- Overloading of transport vehicle is not
such a breach which can be said to be a breach in
terms of Section 149 (2) of MV Act.
2014 ACJ 2182 (Bom)
4- Passengers risk- overloading- truck loaded with coal
and carrying 12 passengers capsized- vehicle was
insured covering driver, cleaner and 6 coolies- IC
contended that truck was over loaded as it was
carrying more that 8 persons- IC contended that there
is breach of policy- whether IC can be held liable?-
held- yes- as IC has failed to show that carrying more
number of coolies would be treated as breach of policy
– if at all there is any breach of policy, it is not
so fundamental as to put end to the contract totally-
IC is bound to satisfy the highest six awards of
coolies
2012 ACJ 287
6– When IC failed to prove that accident occurred due to
overloading, IC can not be exonerated from its
liability to pay compensation.
2015 ACJ 2807 (Raj) – SC judgments B V Nagaraju
v/s OI Com, 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC) and NI Com v/s
Anjana Shyam, 2007 ACJ 2129 (SC) relied upon.
HOME

62. Abate:-
1- Original claimant/injured died natural death during
pendency of claim petition.- whether his/her LRs are
entitled for compassion? - Held -Yes, as claim
petition does not abate on the death of injured
victim.
1991 GLR 352, 2009 (2) GLH 217 Surpal Sing Gohil.
2014 ACJ 930 (AP). 2014 ACJ 1621 (Mad) –
Venkatesan v/s Kasthuri. 2014 ACJ 1754 (P&H),
2014 ACJ 1814 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 1452 (Bom)
2- Award in favour of dead person/claimant – award can
not be passed in favour of dead person – award set
aside with a direction to decide claim petition
afresh.
2015 ACJ 1261 (Del).
3- M V Act u/s 166 – Legal Representative Suits Act, 1855
u/s 1 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 u/s 306 – Claim
for personal injury filed u/s 166 of the M V Act would
abate if the inured dies for other reasons.
2015 (2) CCC 512 (All) – Smt. Saroj Sharam v/s
State of UP.
HOME
63. Fitness Certificate:-

1- Fitness certificate- whether IC can be exonerated on
the ground that owner of the vehicle was not having
fitness certificate- Held- No.
2014 ACJ 94 (All), 2014 ACJ 2711 (Kar), 2015 ACJ
2142 (Ker), 2016 ACJ 1109 (Ker)
2- Fitness Certificate- U/s 149 (2) read with Section 56
- on the date of accident, Fitness Certificate had
expired- whether in such situation IC can dispute its
liability?- Held- No.
2014 ACJ 2226 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 1768 (J&K)
HOME

64. Labourer of Hirer:-
1- Pay and Recover- 19 Labourers of hirer and not of
owner were travelling in goods vehicle which met with
an accident- IC claimed that it is not liable as they
were not authorised to travel in the fateful vehicle-
risk of 8 labourers covered under the policy- owner
and IC held jointly and severally liable to 8
labourers and also directed to first pay to remaining
11 labourers, with a direct to recover.
2014 ACJ 672 (AP)- NI Com v/s Vempada Ramu dated

5.10.2012
2- Accident sustained by a delivery boy when he was

travelling in a delivery vehicle owned by his company-
HC turned down claim of the claimant on the ground
that injured was working as a clerk and risk of
labourer hired to load-unload goods is covered- IMT-17
is relied upon by the SC and held that IC is liable to
make good of the compensation.
2014 ACJ 681 (SC) (FB) – Hanumanagouda v/s UI

Com. Also other judgment on IMT-13 (Second
Driver)- 2014 ACJ 1032
Judgment on IMT 15 (Owner-cum-driver) – Even

if other person was driving the vehicle and owner
was travelling in the said vehicle as occupants,
then also IC is held liable to pay compassion as
per the policy. - 2014 ACJ 1862 (Mad).
Judgment on IMT 18 [as it stood in 2001 –

cleaner of the bus – Additional premium paid- IC
held not liable)] - 2014 ACJ 1920 (AP)
HOME

65. IMT:-
1- Accident sustained by a delivery boy when he was
travelling in a delivery vehicle owned by his company-
HC turned down claim of the claimant on the ground
that injured was working as a clerk and risk of
labourer hired to load-unload goods is covered- IMT-17
is relied upon by the SC and held that IC is liable to
make good of the compensation.
2014 ACJ 681 (SC) (FB) – Hanumanagouda v/s UI
Com. Also other judgment on IMT-13 (Second
Driver)- 2014 ACJ 1032,
Second Driver – 2016 ACJ 1186 (Guj)
Judgment on IMT 15 (Owner-cum-driver) – Even
if other person was driving the vehicle and owner
was travelling in the said vehicle as occupants,
then also IC is held liable to pay compassion as
per the policy. - 2014 ACJ 1862 (Mad).
Judgment on IMT 18 [as it stood in 2001 –
cleaner of the bus – Additional premium paid- IC
held not liable)] - 2014 ACJ 1920 (AP)
2- Owner-driver – Wife is a owner of the vehicle which
bing driven by deceased husband- whether husband can
be said to be third party for wife?- Held- No.- As he
stepped in to the shoe of the owner- Only entitled for
Rs.2,00,000.
2014 ACJ 1524 (UK). Also see 2014 ACJ 1574 (Del),
wherein it is held that as per IMT GR-36 personal
accident cover is available to the owner of
insured vehicle holding valid and effective
licence but anybody driving the vehicle with or
without permission of the owner cannot be taken
as owner-driver.
3- Comprehensive Policy – Package Policy- IMT 37- Good
Vehicle- Gratuitous Passenger- driver of the vehicle
allowed 2 passengers to board in the vehicle which
turn turtle – IC charged premium for Non-Fare- Paying
Passenger. - Under these circumstances, IC held liable
to pay compensation.
2014 ACJ 2412 (Raj)
HOME
66 Use of Vehicle other than registered
for:-
1- Vicarious liability- Master and Servant- accident

occurred when vehicle was used for personal used of
employee- Whether Master/Government can be held
responsible- Held- No.
2014 ACJ 1198
2- Tractor-trolley – Agricultural purpose - when accident

occurred sand was loaded on it – whether IC can avoid
its liability on the count that same was not used for
agricultural purpose?- Held No.- Unless same is proved
by leading cogent evidence, it not be held so.
2014 ACJ 1966 (All)
3- Whether wheeler loader is a 'motor vehicle'- Held-

Yes.
2014 ACJ 2584 (P&H)
4- IC disputed its liability on the ground that vehicle

was run on LPG- but failed to adduce any evidence in
this regard- Held IC is liable
2011 ACJ 2141 (MAD)
5- Tribunal exonerated IC on the ground that vehicle was

found to have two control system and same was used for
driving school- whether sustainable- held – no –IC led
no evidence that vehicle was used for diving school –
2011 ACJ 1632 (BOM)
HOME

67. Central Motor Vehicles Rules:-
1- Central M.V. Rules, 1989, Rule-41- motor vehicle trade

certificate- when can be use?- Held- it could not be
used for purpose other than those mentioned u/r 41 of
the Rules and for carrying passengers.
2012 ACJ 2285 (Kar)
2- U/S 149(2), 170- IC need not to take permission of

Tribunal under section 170, if it is joined as
respondent and not just as notice
2011 ACJ 2729 (SC)- Shila Dutta
3- Central M.V. Rules- Rule 16- Tractor Driving licence-

Rule 16 provides that every licence issued or renewed
shall be in Form VI which provides for grant of
licence in respect of LMV or Transport Vehicle amongst
other categories but there is no specific entry for
issuance of licence for driving a Tractor. As per
Section 2(44), by definition Tractor is LMV and,
therefore, when driver has licence to ply LMV, he can
also ply Tractor.
2014 ACJ (P&H)
HOME

68. Miscellaneous:-
1- Death of owner of offending vehicle prior to the date
of accident- whether in such situation, IC is liable
to pay compensation/- Held- Yes.
2013 ACJ 1576
2- Two Accident- in first accident, deceased sustained
serious injuries and while he was being taken to the
hospital for treatment, second accident occurred- both
the vehicles held liable in the accident.
2013 ACJ 896.
3- M.V. Act- duty of advocates- Guidelines- Good
judgment.
2013 ACJ 474.
4- U/s 166- Efficacious disposal of MACPs with minimum loss
of Judicial time- procedure and guideline stated.
2015 ACJ 514 (P&H).
5– Employee travelling in his company's vehicle, with the
permission of employer – As per IMT 59, if extra premium
is paid, IC can be held liable.
2015 ACJ 2845 (Kar)
6- Death of a dog in vehicular accident – whether claim
petition for the death of a dog is maintainable?- Held.
No.
2016 ACJ 665 (Raj)
7- Theft of vehicle – owner lodged an FIR after 7 days of
incident – IC repudiated claim on the ground that FIR is
filed after 48 hours – Whether sustainable?- Held- No.
2016 ACJ 892 (P&H)
HOME
* * * * *
* * *
*

Motor Vehicle ACT, 1988 Important Judgments: Compiled by Hanif. S. Mulia

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motor Vehicle ACT, 1988 Important Judgments: Compiled by Hanif. S. Mulia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motor Vehicle ACT, 1988 Important Judgments: Compiled by Hanif. S. Mulia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOTOR VEHICLE

Compiled by Hanif. S. Mulia

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.2

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.3

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.4

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.5

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.6

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.7

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.8

14 - DL- IC moved an application for direction against

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.9

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.10

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.11

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.12

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.13

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.14

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.15

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.16

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.17

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.18

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.19

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.20

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.21

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.23

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.24

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.25

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.26

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.27

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.28

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.29

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.30

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.31

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.32

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.33

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.34

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.35

11. Driving Licence:-

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.36

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.37

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.38

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.39

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.40

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.41

11-(B)-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 10(2) - motor

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.42

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.43

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.44

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.45

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.46

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.47

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.48

16. Goods Vehicle and Gratuitous Passengers:-

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.50

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.51

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.52

17. Vehicle hired/leased:-

MVACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.53