Macp Important Judgments. December.2022

MOTOR
VEHICLE
ACT, 1988
IMPORTANT
JUDGMENTS
Decmber, 2022
Compiled by H. S. Mulia
INDEX
Sr. Particulars Page
No. No
A Index 1
1 Tort 5
2 Section 140 6
3 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 9
4 Under Section 163A of M.V. Act 12
5 Jurisdiction 23
6 Legal Representative 28
7 Limitation 35
8 Workmen Compensation Act 36
9 Negligence 40
10 Calculation of compensationQuantum 48
11 Driving Licence 62
12 Private Investigator 80
13 Helper Cleaner Coolie 81
14 Premium and Additional Premium 82
15 Goods as defined u/s 2(13) 83
16 Goods Vehicle and Gratuitous 84
Passengers
17 Vehicle hired/leased 89
18 Which kind of licence required for 91
LMVLGVHGVHTVMGV
19 Avoidance Clause 97
20 Injuries and Disabilities 98
21 Review 100
22 Employees’ State Insurance Act and 101
Employee's Compensation Act
23 Life Insurance 103
24 Medical Reimbursement 103
25 Family Pension 103
26 Compassionate Appointment 104
27 Pillion Rider 105
M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.2

28 Commencement of Policy and Breach of 110
Policy
29 DriverOwner 114
30 Travelling on rooftop of the bus 122
31 Private Vehicle 123
32 Permit 126
33
Hire and Reward
owner/driver for 132
production of DL
34 Transfer of Vehicle 134
35 Post Mortum Report 137
36 Dishonour of Cheque 138
37 Pay and Recover 140
38 Stepped into the shoe of the owner 148
39 Cover Note 154
40 Hypothecation 158
41 Transfer of the Vehicle 160
42 Public Place u/s 2(34) 162
43 Militant Attack HijackTerrorist 163
Attack Murder, Heart Attack –Arising
out of Accident
44 Dismiss for Default 168
45 Burden of Proof 169
45A Stationary Vehicle 171
46 TractorTrolley 173
47 Registration of Vehicle/Number Plate 177
48 Stolen Vehicle 179
49 Hit and Run Under Section 161 180
50 Third Party 182
51 Disbursement and Apportionment 183
52 FIR, Charge sheet, Involvement of 186
Vehicle, Identity of Vehicle
53 Necessary Party 190
54 Conductor’s Licence 191
55 Succession Certificate 191
56 Damage to property 192

57 Settlement 194
58 Mediclaim 195
59 Did not Suffer Financial Loss/ 196
Government Servant
60 Railway 198
61 Overloading 200
62 Abate 202
63 Fitness Certificate 204
64 Labourer of Hirer 206
65 IMT 208
66 Use of Vehicle other than for 210
registered
67 Central Motor Vehicles Rules 212
68 Miscellaneous 213

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1. Tor
t
:
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), 2011 ACJ 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).

7 Even if deceased was negligent in causing the
accident, his LR are entitled to get Rs.50,000/
under Section 140 of the M V Act.
2017 SCJ 2048 (Ker) – 2010 ACJ 2451 (SC) – Indra Devi
v/s Bagada Ram, followed.
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 yesIssuance 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.
Contrary view taken in 2018 ACJ 2147 (Ker)
2012 ACJ 2809
8 O6 R17 – 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, R8 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).
16 O.6 R.17 Amendment of claim petition – claimant

sought amendment of plaint – entire nature of the
claim petition qua negligence is sought to be
amended on the basis of the deposition of the
claimant – whether can be allowed? Held. No.
2018 ACJ 1569 (Ker)
HOME

4. Under Section 163A 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), 2018 ACJ 2147 (Ker) 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.
1A Whether Tribunal has suo motu powers to convert a

claim petition from one u/s 166 to 163A? Held No.
2017 ACJ 1070 (Gua)
1B Claim petition u/s 163A in respect of accident

which occurred on 7.4.1994 i.e. prior to 14.11.1994 when
Section 163A was incorporated – whether in such
situation claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable?
HeldNo.
2018 ACJ 2104 (P&H) – Dhannalal v/s. D.P. Vijayvagiya,

1996 ACJ 1013 (SC) followed.
1C Even after passing an order u/s 140 of the Act, an
order of conversion from a claim petition u/s 166 to
163A of MV Act can be passed 2022 ACJ 1391.
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 judgment 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 163A 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 IlkalKustagl, National
Highway, a bullock cart proceeding ahead of the
said motor cycle carrying ironsheet, 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 163A
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 163A 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 163A 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 163A 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.

2017 ACJ 2750, 2019 ACJ 963 (Gau)

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 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 filing 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 1896SC judgments followed.
17 Whether claimant can convert an application u/s 166
to 163A and vise versa? Held yes SC judgments
followed 2011 ACJ 721
2012 ACJ 1986
2022 ACJ 800 (Kar) – wherein it has been held that
Tribunal has powers to scale down the annual income
below Rs.40,000/. And if claimant has deposed that
his income was beyond Rs.40,000/ Tribunal can not
entertain such claim petition.
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)
But see 2016 ACJ 2529 (Ker) where after following

the ratio laid down in the case of Deepal
Soni, Court held that only those persons whose
income is less than 40,000/ can file an
application u/s 163A and those whose income is
more than 40,000 are not entitled to file an
application u/s 163A.
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). 2019 ACJ 435 (P&H)
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 Dhanbai 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 163A 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 subsection (1) of Section 163A 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
threeJudge Bench in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna
Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441 : (AIR 1977 SC
1248)
26 Unknown vehiclewhether 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 163A 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 163A 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 .
30 163A 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
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)
40 Amount awarded u/s 140 can not be order to be

refunded when main claim petition is ordered to be
dismissed.
2017 ACJ 133 (MP)
41 Accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the
deceased – whether claim petition u/s 163A is
Ningamma vs. UII Com, reported in 2009 ACJ 2020(SC)

and OII Com vs. Sunil Kumar, reported in 2008 ACJ
1441 (SC) relied upon.
2017 ACJ 390 (Kar), 2017 ACJ 402 (Ker)
42 Second Schedule has been declared as redundant,
irrational and unworkable by the Apex Court in the
case of Puttamma vs. Narayana Reddy, 2014 ACJ 526
(SC)
43 Whether section 163A can be made applicable to an
accident which had taken place prior to the
introduction of the Second Schedule of the MV Act?
Held – No. It has prospective application and
would not apply to an accident which and taken
place prior to 14111994.
Kanhaiyalal Vs. Sitabai., 2004 ACJ 1372. Also see

FAO No.1037 of 1998 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High
Court, date of decision: May 31, 2017, Baldev Kaur
and others v/s. Om Parkash.
44 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valiben

Laxmanbhai Thakore v/s. Kandla Dock Labour Board,
FA No.3907 of 2017, dated 27th June, 2018 (Jst Akil
Kureshi and Jst B D Karia) has referred the issue
to the Full Bench to decide an issue as to whether
a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable when
deceased himself was solely negligent in the
accident?
This issue is already decided by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum v/s. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 485 and held
that same is maintainable. It was a case of tyre
burst and vehicle which deceased was plying
capsized. Tyre burst and frame of the wheel hit
the claimant arising out of use of the motor
vehicle 2022 ACJ 1723 (Mad) 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)
IC disputed its liability on the ground that

accident occurred in Nepal and, therefore, IC is
not liable to pay – Whether sustainable? Held –
No. Even as per Section 146 and 147 of the M v Act
IP is attached to the vehicle and not to
geographical area of operation.
2019 ACJ 381 (P&H)
3 Jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat– guideline.
2012 ACJ 1608.
3A Award passed by Tribunal – Execution petition for

enforcement of said award – In Lok Adalat,
claimants agreed to accept less amount than the
awarded amount – claimant preferred appeal against
award of the tribunal – Held that appeal against
the ward of the tribunal is maintainable but
claimants are held entitled for amount agreed in
the Lok Adalat. 2018 ACJ 1454 (Bom)
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 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 retrial 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), 2017 ACJ 299 (Cal),
2017 ACJ 605 (P&H) 2016 ACJ 546 (SC) Malati
Sardar vs. N.I.Com followed, 2017 ACJ 672
(Mad), 2017 ACJ 2156 (Cal), 2017 ACJ 2355
(Chh), 2019 ACJ 851 (Del)
7A 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.
7B Territorial Jurisdiction – when claim petition was
filed before the District A it had the
jurisdiction but later on the place from claimants
are hailing from also got claims Tribunal whether
under such circumstances the claim petition
preferred before the District A is maintainable?
Held – Yes. 2022 ACJ 930 (Gau)
8 Jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal Claim for loss of
business income due to nonuse 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
13 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),
An application for condonation of delay was

preferred as claim petition under the unamended act
was time barred – same came to be dismissed –
claimants preferred another claim petition post
amendment – whether second claim petition can be
said to be time barred and hit by principle of res
judicata? Held No. 2018 ACJ 1739 (All)
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 maintainable? Held Yes.
2015 ACJ 221 (Chh), 2017 ACJ 1930 (Ker)
14A Limitation for filing claim petition Section

166(3) has been deleted w.e.f. 14111994 but that
does not mean that claim petition can be
entertained after unexplained delay of 28 years.
AIR 2017 SC 1612 (FB) = 2017 ACJ 1255 (SC) – M/s

Purohit & Com. V/s Khatoonbee. 2022 ACJ 1564 (Del)
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)
16 Claim petition for own damage – whether

maintainable before the MACT? Held No.
2018 ACJ 1663 (Bom)
16A Own damage – claimant is only entitled to actual

loss and not consequential loss like mental agony
or hiring of another car etc.
2019 ACJ 927 (Chh)
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.
1A Major Sons are entitled to prefer an application

u/s 166 for compensation under the M V Act? Held Yes.
2017 ACJ 1784 (P&H)
1B U/s 166 of the M V Act, there concept of Legal

Representative, whereas, u/s 163A there is concept of
Dependants.
2017 ACJ 1894 (Ker)
2 CoClaimant himself was negligent in causing the

accident, as he was riding the bike – whether he is
entitled for compensation? Held No. His share out of
compensation is required to be deducted.
2017 ACJ 1868 (P&H)
2 Widow remarriage by her whether claim petition by
her maintainable? held yeswhether 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.
2008 ACJ 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) 2018 ACJ 2732 (P&H)
2A Wife died in the vehicular accident – Husband
remarriage within 8 months thereof – Whether in
such circumstances, husband can be treated as LR of
deceased wife? Held Yes.
2017 ACJ 4 (All) – 2022 ACJ 85 (Bom)
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 Rs.50,000 u/s 140 of the Act
2012 ACJ 155 2007 ACJ 1279 SC Manjuri Bera
v/s O I Com. 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),
Even where there is no dependant of LR of
deceased, non dependant heir of the deceased
is entitled to claim compensation u/s 166 of
the M V Act 2016 ACJ 1416 (AP) (FB), 2018
ACJ 379 (Gau).
4A Earning wife – succumbed to the injuries – claim

petition by minor daughter and father – IC disputed its
liability on the count that husband is earning and was

not dependent of the deceased and minor was dependent
on her father – Whether sustainable? Held No.
2017 ACJ 1441 (Ker), For fatal accident of wife, earning
husband is treated as LR of the deceased wife – 2019 ACJ
855 (Del)
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), 2017 ACJ 931 (Kar), 2018 ACJ 110 (Mad).
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 followed.
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., 2018 ACJ 2092 (Mad)
NI Com v/s. Birender, AIR 2020 SC 434 –

Married son is considered for compensation.
11 Remarriage of Widow Whether disentitled 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 163A
words Legal heirs are used. Therefore, Legal
representative of deceased is not entitled to claim
compensation u/s163A 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 deemed
to be held 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 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.
NI Com v/s. Birender, AIR 2020 SC 434
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
application to be joined as LR of mother of the
deceased whether such application can be allowed?
Held Yes.

2016 ACJ 68 (Ker)
19 Widow mother of the deceased – mother working as

Assistant Professor whether claim for compensation
is maintainable? Held Yes. 2016 ACJ 2187 (Mad)
20 Abrogation of Right – death of the mother

(Claimant) of the deceased during pendency of the
claim petition – she did not have any dependent
Whether in such situation her right to claim
compensation abrogated? Held No.
in such situation Tribunal is not required to
calculate compensation on the basis of the age of
the mother.
2017 ACJ 192 (Ker)
21 Legal Representative married daughter and sister
filed four claim petitions as LR of her father,
mother, brother and sister in law – whether such
claim petitions are maintainable? Held yes but
she is entitled to get amount u/s 140 and funeral
expenses only.
2017 ACJ 234 (Guj), married Sister 2018 ACJ 1352
(Mad), 2018 ACJ 1581 (Cal) but in 2018 ACJ 1686
(UK) has taken contrary view.
22 Legal representative – Manager of orphan paternal
aunt whether can be treated as LR of such orphan
– No. But they are entitled for loss estate and
funeral expenses only.
2018 ACJ 91 (Kar)
23 Deceased aged about 78 years – claim petition by 2
major sons and two grandchildren – whether
maintainable? Held yes But instead of 1/3
deduction, 50% deduction ordered.
2018 ACJ 1004 (SC) NIA Com. V/s. Vinish Jain
24 LR – elder brother can prefer a claim petition –

held yes.
2018 ACJ 1057 (Mad)
25 Accident occurred because of the negligence of the
rider of the two wheeler (Bike motorcycle) and
other vehicle – wife who was riding on the bike as
pillion sustained fatal injuries – husband of the
decease (rider of the bike) is entitled to claim
compensation? Held. No. It has been held that
after determining the quantum of compensation, the
extent of the share of the husband/rider of the
bike should be determined and the compensation
awarded to the other heirs should be reduced to
that extent FA No.1450 of 2016, dated 1.9.2016
(Jst. M R Shah and Jst A S Supehia).
Also refer CoClaimant himself was negligent in
causing the accident, as he was riding the bike –
whether he is entitled for compensation? Held No.
His share out of compensation is required to be
deducted. 2017 ACJ 1868 (P&H)
But in the case of N.I. A. Com. V/s. Arunachalam, 2016
SCC Online Mad 16856 = 2017 ACJ 530, it has been
held that only children would be entitled for the
total compensation and not the husband who is also
a tortfeasor.
26 Father filed claim petition for the death of his
unmarried son father died during the pendency of
the claim petition siblings of the deceased filed
an application for joining as LRs of father High
Court granted multiplier of 3 years only based on
the life span of the father.
2022 ACJ 1452 (Mad)
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 maintainable? Held Yes.
2015 ACJ 221 (Chh)
3 – Limitation to file execution petition – Whether

Article 137 of Limitation Act would apply in the
case where execution petition is preferred by the
Claimants or LR of the deceased? Held No. 2003
ACJ 1999 (SC) – N I Assurance Comp. V/s C. Padma
relied upon.
2016 ACJ 1337 (UK)
4 Accident occurred on 07.03.1989 – claim petition

filed on 03.03.2010 delay of 21 years not condoned
2022 ACJ 427 (Mad)
HOME

8. W
orkmen 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),
A where claimant filed in FORM after issuance of
notice by the commissioner – held that since
they did not approach the Commissioner for
compensation, claim petition under the M V Act
is maintainable. 2017 ACJ 1807(HP)
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
insurerappellant 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 & 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)
10 – Objection by IC that claimant have already
preferred claim petition under the WC Act, it is
not open for the claimant to prefer a claim
petition under the MV Act – Whether sustainable?
Held No. Out of the total awarded amount of

compensation in the MACP, amount awarded under the
WC has to be deducted.
2017 ACJ 2129 (Kar) – 2013 ACJ 709(SC) – OI Com v/s
Dyamavva followed and 2006 ACJ 528 (SC) NI Com. V/s
Mastan, considered.
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,
2A Plead guilty – admissible – 2017 ACJ 1514 (Mad)
But see – Such confessional statement shall be not be
treated as conclusive proof.
2008 ACJ 2553 (Mad), 2016 ACJ 1619 (Mad)
3 Composite negligence nonjoinder 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), 2015 ACJ 1441 (SC) – Khenyei v/s
NIA Com. Ltd., 2016 ACJ 2335 (HP), 2017 ACJ 327
(Hyd)
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), 2018 ACJ 225
(HP)
2018 ACJ 663 (J&K)
When it is an admitted fact that accident occurred
due to sole negligence of the driver – IC can't
be held responsible to pay compensation as
tortfeasor can't be allowed to take benefit of
his own wrong.
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, 2016 ACJ 1969 (AP), 2017 ACJ 1857
(HP), 2017 ACJ 2186 (HP)
5A Claimant travelling on the rooftop – when it is found
that injured was travelling on the rooptop in
violation of Section 123 (2) of the M V Act IC can't
be held liable.
2017 ACJ 2775 (Cal)
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), 2016 ACJ 2097 (Ker)
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, 2018 ACJ 2465 (P&H). 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.
2013 ACJ 1297 (Pat). 2019 ACJ 42 Saraswati
Palariya v/s. NI A Com.
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), 2017
ACJ 170 (Ker), 2017 ACJ 2696 (All), 2018 ACJ 2067
(P&H), 2021 ACJ 2744 (Mad), Mohammed Siddique v/s.
National Insurance Com, Civil Appeal 79 of 2020,
dated 08.01.2020, 2022 ACJ 1497 (Ker)
But also see, 2018 ACJ 110 (Mad) and 2019 ACJ 624
(Mad), wherein such claimant is held negligent to an
extent of 15%.
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), 2017 ACJ 774 (P&H)
17A Contention that law does not require the owner of the
vehicle to be vicariously liable for criminal act of
his driver as contemplated u/s 185 of the M V Act
then IC as indemnifier can not be made liable
Whether this argument is sustainable/ Held No.
2019 ACJ 589 (Bom)
18 Res judicate negligence when findings giving in the
other case is not binding? Principles stated.
2013 ACJ 2283 (MP)

himself was negligent in causing the accident IC is
not liable to pay compensation.
Swami, 2013 ACJ 2622 (Ker) – O.I. Com. v/s P.P.
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, 2022
ACJ 1441 (All)
22A Tribunal held that accident occurred due to sole
negligence of other vehicle and minor who was plying
motorcycle was not negligent but the father of the
minor was held negligent on the count that he was
negligent in handing over the vehicle to the minor –
whether sustainable? Held. No.
2018 ACJ 982 (Guj)

himself was negligent in causing the accident IC is
Swami, 2013 ACJ 2622 (Ker) – O.I. Com. v/s P.P.
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), 2017
ACJ 2107 (Del) – Jawahar Singh v/s Bala ain 2011
ACJ 1677 (SC) followed See Note No.10 of page
no. 114)
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), 2017 ACJ 2140
P&H), 2018 ACJ 732 (Sik) – Case law discussed.
26A Finding of trail court whereby driver of offending
vehicle is has been acquitted, can not be the ground

to dismiss the claim petition 2016 ACJ 1671 (HP)
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), 2017 ACJ 546 (HP)
29 Res ipsa loquitur Land Slide whether in such
situation driver can be held responsible and cant be
treated such accident as Act of God? Held yes.
2017 ACJ 918 (Sik)
30 Whether non possession of DL would be sufficient to
come to conclusion that driver had contributed in the
accident? Held – No.
2018 ACJ 535 (SC) – Dinesh kumar J. v/s. NII Com.
31 – There is a distinction between the injury arising out
of the accident and the injury arising out of the use
of the vehicle Iffco Tokyo General Insurance
Company Limited v/s. Joes Antony (Died) 2019 ACJ 689;
2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 4320;
32 In absence of the rebuttal of evidence of the eye
witness, no weightage can be given to the contents of
the FIR. 2021 ACJ 2558 – N.I. Com. V/s.
Chamundeswari.

33 Negligence accident between unknown truck and jeep,
resulting into injury to the passenger in the jeep
injured put blame on the unknown truck while giving
statement before the police whereas, the claim
petition is preferred against the jeep inter alia
alleging negligence of jeep driver whether
sustainable? Held No. 2022 ACJ 2105 (Bom)
read along with following judgment.
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, 2017 ACJ 491 (Raj), 2017 (1) GLR
463 – NIACL vs. Giraben D. Patel.
HOME

10. Calculation of compensationQuantum:
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 Unborn Child 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), 2017 ACJ 2460 (Ker), 2014
ACJ 2509 (P&H), Kusuma's case, 2011 ACJ 2432(SC) SC
judgment followed Gujarat High Court awarded
Rs.1,80,000/ 2022 ACJ 1838 (Guj)
2A Child in the womb – Posthumous child – father died in
the accident and thereafter, the Posthumous child
born and joined – whether such Posthumous child can
be treated as dependent? Held Yes.
2022 ACJ 395 (Ker)
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), Meena Pawaia v/s. Ashraf Ali, 2022 ACJ
528 (SC)
Student of BCA – Income assessed Rs.6,000/ p/m.
2017 ACJ 2325 (All)
Student of BCA – Income assessed Rs.5,000/ p/m.
2017 ACJ 2381 (J&K)

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.
In the case of women, agriculturist, who met
with an accident in the year 1991, SC awarded
compensation calculated on the basis of monthly
income of Rs.4,500/.
2018 ACJ 538 Laxmi Nayak v/s. Jugal Kishore
Behera.
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, 2017 ACJ 1855
(SC) – Chikkamma vs. Parvathamma.
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, 2017 ACJ 697 (SC) – Divisional
Manager of OI Com vs. Swapna Nayak
But also see 2016 ACJ 1262 (Ker) when deceased
had no permanent job in the foreign country, his
income should not be considered on the basis of

foreign currency 2017 ACJ 668 (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.
16A Software engineer running software business there
is no evidence on record to suggest that said
business was closed down after his demise held that
amount paid to engage an employee is to be treated as
loss of income 2022 ACJ 1027 Divisional Manager
v/s. D. Durgadevi
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 completed 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.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.19605 of 2017
(SLP (C) No.37617 of 2016), dated 22 November, 2017
has found merit in the submission made on behalf of
the claimants that view taken in Pranay Sethi's case
is no bar future prospects being taken at level
higher 25% in the case deceased above 40 years or 50%
in the case the deceased was below 40 years if
evidence on record so warrant and standardization may
be increased based on presumption but when there is
an actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the
Tribunal/Court that future prospects was higher than
the standard percentage, there is no bar to the
Tribunal/Court awarding higher compensation on that
basis. 2018 ACJ 5 – Hem Raj v/s. O.I. Com.
Similar view taken in AIR 2018 SC 2088 –
Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi vs. NIA Com.
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. Also see 2016 ACJ 2545 (Hyd)
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., 2017 ACJ 567 (HP)\
21A Deceased aged about 45 was a life convict – what
should be multiplier? Held term of life sentence
that is 14 years to be added in the age of the
deceased – i.e. 45 plus 14 would be 59 and multiplier
would be 9. 2018 ACJ 2171 (Mad)
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.
After the ratio laid down by the Constitutional Bench
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra), two judges of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of in the case of Bhagwati
Yadav v/s. O.I. Com., 2018 ACJ 11 has awarded
Rs.1,00,000/ for loss of estate and funeral,
Rs.50,000/ for loss of consortium and
Rs.50,000/ for loss of love and affection.
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 Supervisory capacity 2022 ACJ
1614 (Guj) NIA Com. v/s. Jayaba Jayvirshnh Jhala
Jst R M Chhaya and Jst Hemant Prachchhak
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
adduce 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.
2013 ACJ 2445 (SC) – Mallikarjun v/s Division Manager
is not followed by SC in the case of Kum
Nazama v/s. Managing Director, 2022 ACJ 2380

(SC)
27A Whether deviation from Mallikarjun case is possible?
Held yes – bur special reasons should be assigned for it.
2017 ACJ 1459 (Ker)
28 Student of Engineering Fatal SC assessed compassion
to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs.
2013 ACJ 2860 (SC) Radhakrishna v/s Gokul
28A Student of MBA – SC consider notional income as
10,000/ per month. Shakuntala v/s. Balraj, 2019 ACJ
3164 (SC).
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.

34A Since issue with respect to assessment of
compensation on the basis of future prospect
income has been referred to the Larger Bench,
what order should be passed?
Held assessment of compensation should be based on
the principle of the future prospect income and
amount calculated under the head of the future
prospect income may be order to be deposited in
FDR till the decision of Apex Court in the case
of NIC vs. Pushpa, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 166
and Shashikala vs. Gangalakshmamma, reported in
2015 ACJ 1239 is rendered. 2017 ACJ 475 (P&H)
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.
2014 ACJ 1817
35A When notional income of the deceased is taken into
consideration for the assessment of the compensation,
whether in such situation, future prospect of the
deceased can be taken into consideration Held Yes.
2014 ACJ 1441 (SC) – V. Mekala vs. Malathi. 2016
ACJ 2742 (Ker)
35B Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Tokas
v/s. New India Insurance Com. Ltd, AIR 2019 SC 3921
has held that even in the case where notional income
has been taken into account for calculation of amount
of compensation, future prospect of the deceased
shall be taken into consideration.
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)
Provided same is ITRs filed during the life time of
the deceased – 2018 ACJ 1986
36A Even if ITR are filed after the death of the
deceased, same can be taken into consideration for
the purpose of calculation of compensation.
Rukmani Jethani v/s. Gopal Singh, 2021 ACJ 2683 (SC)
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 194A(3)(ix).
2016 ACJ 1231 (Chh).
But see – Order calling upon IC to pay TDS/deduct TDS
on the interest part of compensation is not
sustainable 2016 ACJ 1639 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 505
(Mad), Court on its Motion vs. H.P. State Cooperative
bank Ltd, reported in 2014 SCC online HP 4273 – 2017
ACJ 1727 (Guj) – N I A Com vs. Bhoyabhai Haribhai
Bharvad, 2017 ACJ 1775 (Bom) wherein Gujarat Judgment
has been followed. 2019 ACJ 376 (Guj) – 2022 ACJ
437 (All)
37A Relying on the Supreme Court judgment reported in the
case of CIT Belgaun Urban Develpoment v/s. CIT, 2017
(13) SCC 759 it has been held that IC has right to
deduct TDS if it exceeds 50,000/. 2020 ACJ 72 (MP)
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), 2017 ACJ 931 (Kar).
Even minor son living with his divorced mother is
also entitled for the amount of Compensation as LR of
the deceased father.
2017 ACJ 939 (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)
45 – Whether non payment of Income Tax would lead to the
conclusion that claimant was not earning the income
he claimed in the claim petition? Case of Advocate
Held No.
2016 ACJ 2277 (J&K)
46 Injury Case – Where injured has suffered 100%
disability or amputation.

In the case of Rajan v/s Soly Sebastian, reported in
2015 (10) SCC 506, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
when a professional like Driver suffers Permanent
Partial Disability (100% functional disability), 50%
enhancement for future prospect is required to be
made.
In the case of Govind Yadav v/s National Insurance

Com. Ltd., reported in 2012 (1) TAC 1 (SC) = 2012 ACJ
28 (SC) an active practising lawyer has become
paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by
him, in the case of M.D. Jacob v/s United India
Insurance Com. Ltd. 2014 ACJ 648 (SC) (FB) injured
had experience of working as an Electrician and was
employed as such and on account of several serious
injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident,
including amputation of complete left hand, severe

injuries in head, dislocation of bones in hip and
both knees and severe injuries in foot and Doctor has
assessed his disability at 100%, in the case of
Sanjay Kumar v/s Ashok Kumar 2014 ACJ 653 (SC) =AIR
2014 SC (Supp) 1584 injured claimant who was employed
as a skilled embroiderer received injuries in a
roadside accident and due to injuries sustained, his
right leg above the knee had to be amputated, and in
the case of V. Mekala v. M. Malathi, reported in AIR
2014 SCW 2973 a minor girl studying in the 11 th
Standard holding first rank in her school sustained
grievous injuries and has become a permanently
disabled. Whereas in the case of Sanjay Verma v.
Haryana Roadways, reported in AIR 2014 SC 995 (FB)
injured who was a selfemployed person sustained
vehicular injuries and has become cent percent
paralyzed. In all the above referred judgments,
Hon'ble Apex Court has assessed the amount of
compensation after taking into consideration future
prospects of increase of income of the injured.
Also refer to AIR 2017 SC 2943 – Dixit Kumar vs. om
Prakash.
Kindly refer, 2018 ACJ 547 (SC) – Ankur kappor v/s.
OI Com
Injured a Security Officer – amputation of left leg
SC granted future prospect – N. I. Ass. Com. V/s
Gajendra Yadav 2017 ACJ 2834.
Injure a Labourer – amputation of Right hand SC
granted future prospect – Ankush v/s Hanmanta, 2017
ACJ 2878.
47 Oral evidence of monthly income of the deceased not
believed by the Tribunal on the count that there is

no documentary evidence to support the case of
claimants – whether such findings are sustainable?
Held. No. As oral evidence has the same
evidentery value as documentary evidence.
2018 ACJ 880 (cal)
48 Claimant has pleaded that his monthly income was

7,000 but during inquiry it is proved that his
monthly income is 20,000. Under this circumstance
which income should be taken into consideration.
Held Rs.20,000/.
2018 GLR (2) 1321 NIC Ltd v/s. Rajeshkumar

Ramanlal Soni
49 Assessment of income of the deceased – deceased

employed with FCI – income of deceased can not be
assessed only on the basis of salary certificate of
the deceased – if income tax returns show high
figures than that of salary income, the income
shown in the income tax returns shall be taken into
account.
U I I Com. v/s Indiro Devi, AIR 2018 SC 3107
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 yesmere 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 yesmere 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 thirdparty 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
subsec. (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 subsec. (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 subsec. (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 subsec. (4) with
the proviso thereunder and subsec. (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".
Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rishi
Pal Singh v/s. NIA Com, 2022 ACJ 1868 (SC) has
held that if the owner had taken the test of the
driver who had presented fake licence to the
owner at the time of such test, owner can not be
held guilty IC is held laible.
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
When payment for renewal of licence is not the pre
Condition and same was not paid, it can not held that
since payment is made after the the period of 30
days, licence issued there after can not came with
retrospective effect.
2019 ACJ 65 (SC) OI Com. v/s. Mathu Ram
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 respondentowner of the scooter and
appellantinsurance 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
subsec. (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) 39, 10,
1416, 1921, 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. followed by SC in 2017 ACJ 1722 (SC) –
Kempaiah vs. S.S. Murthy
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 Nonpossession 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 liabilityheld 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 –
2022 ACJ 124 (Bom) in this case accident occurred 45
minutes prior to the time of accident – IC held not
laible.
26A Accident occurred when rider of the motor cycle who
was having only learner's licence and there was no

one sitting as pillion rider to guide him, as
provided under Rule 3(b) of the Central M V Rules,
1988. Whether IC can't be exonerated in such
situation? Held Yes. But order of Pay and Recover
is passed.
2018 ACJ 577 (Mad)
26AAAccident occurred when rider of the motor cycle who
was having only learner's licence and there a pillion
rider who sustained injuries whether a claim
petition by such injured is maintainable? Held Yes.
As per Rule 24(3) of the Central M V Rules, 1989,
motorcyclist is exempted from the requirement of
instructor to accompany him. 2020 ACJ 1 (Karn)
26B Sitting capacity is only one – IC took premium to
covering risk of two labourers death of labourer –
IC took defence that sitting capacity is only one
therefore, risk of labourer is not covered – whether
such stand of the IC is sustainable? Held No.
2018 ACJ 2254 (Mad)
27 DL Fake DL IC adduced no evidence to prove that

insured committed willful default of IP whether IC
can seek to avoid its liabilityheld 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
accidentTribunal 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).
37 When trailer/Trolley is attached with the tractor and
driver of such vehicle is hold licence to drive
tractor, and accident occurred, whether in such
situation, IC can be exonerate on count that driver
was not holding licence to ply trailer/Trolley
attached to tractor. Held No.
2016 ACJ 1988 (P&H)
38 IC took the plea that driver has deposed that he had
misplaced DL in June 2009 and, therefore, owner has
seen the DL of Driver in the year 2011 ca not be
believed – However driver has mentioned that he

traced out in the month of September, 2009 and said
fact has also been recorded by police – contrary
stand taken by driver can not render the veracity of
words of owner that prior to handing over the vehicle
to the driver he had verified the details of the DL.
2003 ACJ 11 (SC) – UII Com. vs. Lehru relied upon.
2017 ACJ 360 (Del)
39 U/S 134 (c) IC took defence that it is the duty of
the driver to supply information to IC with respect
to particulars of his Driving Licence – Driver and
owner were ex parte – no application was moved by IC
to direct the driver and owner to do the needful as
provided u/s 134(c) of the M V Act – whether in such
circumstances, IC can be exonerated from its
liability? Held No.
2017 ACJ 1527 9(P&H)
40 While parking the vehicle driver came in contact with
high tension live wire and sustained serious injuries
and dies – whether entitled to get compensation under
the M V Act? Held Yes. Even defence if IC that he
had valid licence would not be a good defence as
accident did occuered because of lack of licence
2017 ACJ 1829 (All) – 2004 ACJ 1 – Swaran Singh
followed.
41 DL – Clerk of RTO deposed that driver's licence for
valid for five years only – In fact licence depicts
the fact that it was valid for the period of 20 years
from the date of issue. Section 14(2)(b) also
provides that – deposition of clear of RTO can't be
believed.
2018 ACJ 1259 (SC) Compaq International v/s. Bajaj
Allianz.
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
maintainable? Held Yes. 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), 2018 ACJ 643 (Chh)
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)
1A Livestock (goat) is covered under the definition of
goods? Held Yes. 2021 ACJ 123 (Mad)
2 Ganesh idol whether falls with in the definition of
goods held –yes
2011 ACJ 2091 (KAR)
2A Members of the music band travelling along with their
musical instruments – whether musical instruments can
be treated as Goods? Held Yes.
2019 ACJ 272 (Bom)
3 – Injured was travelling in the good vehicle and sharing
front driver seat with the driver – his claim is to
the effect that he was travelling in the vehicle as
the owner of the goods – whether sustainable? Held
No. When sitting capacity is limited to one person,
owner of the goods cant be allowed to sit in the
goods vehicle.
2017 ACJ 2169 (Ker)
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 Subsec. 1 of S. 147 of
the Act although no goods of his as such were carried
in the vehicle claimantrespondent 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. AIR 2017 SC 1204 = 2017 ACJ 1031
(SC) – Manuara Khatun vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh. OI Com.
V/s. Brij Mohan, 2007 ACJ 1909 (SC). 2018 ACJ 1953
(Bom). 2019 ACJ 2802 – Anu Bhanvara v/s. Iffco Tokio
GIC (SC).
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 brickkiln 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), AIR 2017 SC 1204 – Manuara
Khatun vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh
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 NonFare Paying
Passenger. Under this circumstances, IC held liable
to pay compensation.
2014 ACJ 2412 (Raj)
14A While boarding the good vehicle owner of the good
sustained injuries, driver of the vehicle started
vehicle without any indication whether claimant can
be termed as the gratuitous passenger under these
circumstances? Held No.
2016 ACJ 2525 (Guj)
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 vehicle 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.
But see AIR 2017 SC 1204 – Manuara Khatun vs. Rajesh
Kr. Singh
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

held liable.
2016 ACJ 718 (Guj) – NIA com. V/s Rekhaben B N
Thakkar, 2019 ACJ 905 (P&H)
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) – UPRTC v/s Kulsum, 2014 ACJ
1274 (AP) – UII Com v/s Sharapuram Balavva, 2016
ACJ 2108 (All)
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), 2022 ACCJ 211 (Tel) 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), 2016 ACJ 1992 (Man), 2017 ACJ
1860 (Kar), wherein it is held that deviation
from permitted route can be construe as breach
of permit but not of the purpose allowed in the
permit.
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), When control of the vehicle

hired is with the hirer, policy is deemed to be
transferred along with the vehicle – UPSRTC v/s.
National Insurance Com. 2021 ACJ 2282 (SC)
4 OwnerHirer – 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).
6 Vehicle given on hire – IC dispute its liability on
the ground that intimation with respect to the hire
had not been given to the IC and additional premium
as per PMT 44 had not been paid – Whether
sustainable? Held No.
2019 ACJ 355 (Hyd)
HOME

18.
Which kind of licence required for
LMVLGVHGVHTVMGV:
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
accidentTribunal 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 12year girl in accident Claimants are from
poor background 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. Finally decided and reported in 2017 ACJ
2011 (SC) = AIR 2017 SC 3668
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 (Nontransport) 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, 2021 ACJ 367(Bom)

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 2025% 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)
But also see When Disability Certicate has been issued by
the Chief Mediacal Officer of the Mediacal Board, it
is public document and is admissible as provided u/s
77 of the Evidence Act and its contents are not
required to be proved. 2017 ACJ 610 (All)
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
10 When disability certificate has been issued by the
Doctor who has not treated the victim and has
examined the victim for the purpose of assessment of
disability and same has been done on the basis of the
XRay, whether such disability certificate can be can
into consideration? Held, No.
2016 ACJ 1762 (Cal)
But see 2016 ACJ 2445 (Ker) where different view has
been taken.
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), 2017 ACJ 1468 (MP),
2019 ACJ 3189 (Chh)
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
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)

5 Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Section 53 –
Bar against receiving compensation under the M V Act
– IC failed to prove that accident occurred during
the course of employment of the deceased. Claim
petition u/s 166 maintainable.
2018 ACJ 655 (MP)
HOME

23. Life Insurance:
1 Life Insurance and/or Group insurance Double accident
Benefit Whether can be allowed Held Yes
2014 ACJ 1237, 2022 ACJ 1156(Kar)
2 Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy taken by the
employer of the deceased – amount received thereunder
can be deducted form the amount of compensation?
held No.
2017 ACJ 87 (Kar) – Helen C. Rebello MSTRC, 1999 ACJ
10 (SC) and Vimal Kanwar vs. Kishore Dan, 2013 ACJ
1441 (SC) followed.
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). 2017 ACJ 2051
= AIR 2017 SC 2580 – N I I Com. vs. Rekhaben.
2019 ACJ 621 (Jha), 2022 ACJ 1913 (Ori)
But in the recent decision, Supreme Court (FB) has
taken contrary view Please refer 2016 ACJ 2723
= 2016 (9) SCC 627 = AIR 2016 SC 4465 – Reliance
General Insurance Com. V/s Shashi Sharma.
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 coordinate 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), For package policy, please refer
2017 ACJ 2512 (MP)
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 – As same can be termed as violation of
Section 128 of the MV Act. 2018 ACJ 1888 (HP)
2011 ACJ 1766 (MAD) and 2016 ACJ 1865 (Hyd) 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 Two pillion rider offending tractor dashed with the
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), 2017 ACJ

1758 (Kar), 2017 ACJ 2696 (All).
Mohammed Siddique v/s. NI Com. Ltd, AIR 2020 SC 520 –
at the most same is in violation of Section 128 of
the M V Act, 1988 and Section 194C of the Amended M
V Act.
3A Three Pillion rider rider held negligent 2022 ACJ
1779 (Mad)
3AA Three pillion riders – rider of the motorcycle held
negligent to an extent of 25% 2022 ACJ 596
4 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)
5 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)
6 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
7 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
8 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)
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.
11 Whether the pillion rider can be held negligent in
causing the accident? Held No.
2017 ACJ 2292 (P&H)

12 Owner of the motorcycle was riding as pillion –
accident – claim as third party, since IP is covered
by comprehensive policy – whether sustainable? Held.
No.
2018 ACJ 796 (Mad)
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), 2022 ACJ 536 (Kar), 2022
ACJ 567 (Mad)
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 policywhen 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) SCC370 –Blabir Kaur v/s N.I.A.Com
4 U/s 147 (1) Insurance Act u/s 64VB 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
4A Payment of premium was made on 13.4.2004 – IC issued
policy on 14.4.2004, 00.00 hrs. Accident occurred
on 13.4.2004 at 1.30 pm. Whether IC can avoid its
liability? Held No. 2019 ACJ 1162
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 64VB – 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 stands on different footing than the other IP
2014 ACJ 2847 (Chh) – SC judgments followed.
2022 ACJ 96 (Mad)
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 nondisclosure 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 Tractortrolley 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)
13 Premium received on 30.10.2000 – covernote issued on
31.10.2000 at 4.40 pm – accident occurred on
31.10.2000 at 10.30 am – whether IC is liable? Held

Yes. As per Section 64VB of the Insurance Act and
Section 147 of the MV Act policy commences from the
date of receipt of payment i.e. 30.10.2000 and,
therefore, IC is liable. 2018 ACJ 2764 (MP)
14 Commencement of policy IC issued policy mentioned
time and date as 1957 hrs and 23.05.2012 accident
occurred on 0230 hrs on 23.05.2012 contention that
payment of premium was made on 22.05.2012 at 2005 hrs
whether the IC is liable? Held No. policy
commences from the date and time mentioned in the
policy and not from the date and time mentioned in
the policy 2022 ACJ 2174 (Mad).
15 IC issued IP for a period between 03.10.2007 to
02.09.2007 accident occurred on 22.08.2008 IC
contended that inadvertently wrong dated are
mentioned in the IP and the actual date of IP is
10.03.2007 to 09.03.2008 whether sustainable Held
No. 2022 ACJ 2225(Gau)
HOME

29. DriverOwner:
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 vehicleWhether 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 insurercompany 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 appellantowner 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.,
2017 ACJ 2526 (Tri)
Dhanraj's case distinguished by Sikkim High High
Court bu holding that Additional premium was paid for

the employee and ownerdriver and he was permitted to
drive the vehilce as driver specified in 'Driver
Clause' – 2017 ACJ 2801 (Sik). Similar view has been
taken by J & k High Court – 2017 ACJ 2821 (J&K)
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 appellantowner 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 Nonjoinder of driver IC did not agitated the same

during trial, though plea of nonjoinder 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 DriverOwner 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 Ownerdriver – 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. 2022 ACJ 1510 (Mad)
2014 ACJ 1524 (UK). Also see 2014 ACJ 1574
(Del), wherein it is held that as per IMT GR36
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 ownerdriver. But in 2022
ACJ 1657 (MP) it is held that even a person who

is not the owner can also claim the benefit of
premium made by the owner under the head of
personal accident.
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 163A cannot be
turned down.
2015 ACJ 2739 (AP) Several SC judgments
relied upon.
Also see 2016 ACJ 335 (Kar) – Rs.1,00,000/
awarded. 2022 ACJ 2323 (P & H)
Also see 2018 ACJ 633 (HP) – Rs.2,00,000/
awarded.
Also refer 2022 ACJ 2179 (Ker) wherein the
difference between the owner and occupant is
explained occupant would be covered if the IP
is a package policy and owner of the vehicle is
covered if the premium is paid under the PA and
not vise versa. also refer 2022 ACJ 2004 (Mad)
13 Ownercumdriver – 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 Driverowner held responsible for causing the
accident other vehicle which dashed with the vehicle
of driverowner, did not have valid and effective
policy Tribunal jointly held driverowner and driver
of the other vehicle responsible in the said accident
and directed the IC of the driverowner to pay
compensation whether sustainable Held No As
policy covers only TP and not owner.
2013 ACJ 393 (Cal) SC judgments followed.
18– Driverowner 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), 2017 ACJ 2678 (MP)
19– Motor cycle of the owner was borrowed – met with an
accident with truck – additional premium of was paid
to driver the risk of Driverowner – 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) 2022 ACJ 1908 (Gau) wherein it has been
held that any person holding valid and effective
licence can be held to driver and is as such covered
under the term Ownerdriver, as additional premium to
cover the personal accident PA is paid.
But see 2016 ACJ 1050 (P&H), 2018 ACJ 2469 (P&H)
and 2018 ACJ 2499 (P&H) wherein it is held that IC is
liable to pay only Rs.50,000/ u/s 140 to the
borrower of the vehicle as he is not the under and
covered under PA Cover and not the entire amount u/s
166.
20 Driverowner of the auto rickshaw died in the

vehicular accident – Auto rickshaw was being plied
by driver and owner – additional premium to cover
the risk of own damage and for paid driver was paid
by way of comprehensive policy – Whether in such
situation, IC can be held liable to pay amount of
compensation? Held Yes.
2016 ACJ 1565 (Bom)
20A Whether the Tribunal can award compensation in

favour of the paid driver on the basis of principle
of MV Act or under the Employee's Compensation
Act? Held As per the Employee's Compensation Act.
2022 ACJ 1977 (Mad)
20AAOwner of the Rickshaw was travelling as passenger

in the rickshaw owned by him – accident occurred –
whetehr IC is liable to pay amount of compensation
to the owner of the rickshaw, considering his case
as TP passenger? Hled No.
2017 ACJ 1058 (Bom) Dhanraj vs. New India Ass.
2005 ACJ 1 (SC) relied upon.

21 Wife and Son of DriverOwner died in the accident –
in the said accident Driverowner also died
whether in such situation claim petition is
maintainable against IC without joining the Driver
owner? Held Yes. 2017 ACJ 688 (Del)
22 Premium covering risk of Driverowner paid –

accident occurred due to the negligence of the paid
driver – IC disputed its liability on the count
that paid driver is not covered and only driver cum
owner is covered whether sustainable? Held No. It
makes no difference as to who was driving the
vehicle, whether it was paid driver or driver cum
owner. 2018 ACJ 2736 (UK)
23 Meaning of driverowner borrower of the vehicle
is not cover under the meaning of DriverOwner – as per
GR.36 of the IMT, 2002, only registered owner is within
the perview of driverowner not the borrower of the
vehicle. 2019 ACJ 2922 (P&H)
HOME

30. Travelling on rooftop/footboard of
the bus, placed lauguage on the
roof top:
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.
3 Negligence – Deceased was Travelling on the footboard –
Chargesheet has been filed against the driver of the
vehicle Whether IC can claim exoneration under these
circumstances – Held No.
2016 ACJ 2697 (Mad)
4 Claimant sustained injuries due to the wooden article
placed on the roof top of the corporation bus –
Whether driver of the bus can be held laible to pay
compensation? Held No. Only conductor and
corporation/Owner of the vehicle can be held liable
but the driver.
2016 ACJ 2860 (P&H)
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
ownercumdriver – 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), 2017 ACJ 2045
(SC) – NIA Com. V/s Shanti Bopanna. Contrary view by
Gujarat High Court in the case of Hemendrasinh Mansinh
Jadav v/s. Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Dabhi, 2019 ACJ 600 (S G
Shah J) NI Com.v/s. Legal Heirs of Gobarbhai Arjanbhai
Damasiya, 2022 ACJ 1388 Jst R M Chhaya and followed the
judgment delivered by the justice N V Anjaria in case of
UII Com. v/s. Ramdevbhai Dahyabhai Mokaria
6A Owner travelling in the jeep as the occupant and not as an
employee – claimants contended that as the addition premium
paid by the insured towards PA cover for unnamed person
includes coverage to employee of the owner whether under
these circumstances – IC can be held responsible? Held – No.
As the addition premium paid by the insured towards PA cover
for unnamed person excludes coverage to employee of the
owner. 2021 ACJ 2379 (Mad).
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)
7A Husband of the owner of the tractor was travelling in the
said tractor and same turned turtle and husband of the

owner sustainable injuries – claim petition by the husband
of the owner is maintainable? Held. No.
2017 ACJ 2209 (MP).
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 –
whether in such situation IC is held liable to pay
compensation? Held Yes.
2016 ACJ 732 (Chh)
9A IC disputed its liability on the count that offending
bus was initially insured as an omnibus and
thereafter, by suppressing material fact, insurance
policy was renewed by altering the class of vehicle
as school bus – Held that when School bus
(educational institution bus) used for carrying
students and staff can be said to be used for hire
and reward? Held No.
2016 ACJ 1531 (Ker)
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)
However, P&H High Court has taken a contrary view in
a case reported in 2018 ACJ 649 (P&H) – 2004 ACJ 2094
(SC) NII Com v/s. Challa Bharathamma.
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 rewardmere 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)
2A Permit of the offending vehicle had expired before
the date of Accident, whether in such situation, IC
can be held responsible? Held No.
2017 ACJ 825 (Mad)
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, 2017 ACJ 1076 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 1082
(P&H), 2019 ACJ 833 (HP)
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), 2016 ACJ 2145 (HP), 2017 ACJ 635
(P&H), 2017 ACJ 650 (Kar), 2017 ACJ 2205 (Gau),
2017 ACJ 2383 (P&H), 2018 ACJ 1810 (P&H), 2018
ACJ 1858 (Bom)
5A When there is no route permit at all, IC can not be
held responsible to pay amount of compensation but order
of Pay and Recover can be passed.
2017 ACJ 766, 2017 ACJ 2205 (Gau), 2018 ACJ 2430 (SC) –
Rani v/s. NI Com.
5B Police deposed before the Court that in the
chargesheet route permit has not been produced – based on
that Tribunal held that there is violation of route
permit Whether sustainable? Held No. As IC could not
prove the same by leading evidence in this regard.
2020 ACJ 13 (P&H)
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 Order of Pay and Recover

passed
2013 ACJ 2282 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 1076 (P&H), 2017
ACJ 1082 (P&H),2017 ACJ 1173 (Mad).
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. Also see 2018 ACJ 118 (P&H)
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.
Section 66 of the M V Act – route permit –
violation of – route permit is said to be
violated only when vehicle is used for goods
purpose against the valid permit of passenger
vehicle. 2018 ACJ 2571 (P&H)
As per Sec. 66(3) of the MV Act there is no
requirement to have permit for any transport
vehicle if it is proceeding empty to any place
for the other purpose. 2019 ACJ 2939 (Del)

2017 ACJ 1919 (P&H) it has been held that when on the
date of accident, there was no permit, IC can't
be held liable to pay compensation.
8A Violation of Route permit, does not absolve IC to
avoid its liability. 2017 ACJ 168 (P&H), 2017
ACJ 282 (P&H) – 2013 ACJ 1213 (P&H) followed.
2020 ACJ 267 (Kar)
8B Offending vehicle met with in accident –
accident occurred where the vehicle was not
allowed to be plied as same was not having route
permit – whether IC can be held liable – Held –
Yes as violation of route permit can only
entails penalty as same is relevant only for the
purpose of levy of taxes.
2017 ACJ 1648 (UK)
8C – Violation of permit – vehicle used as ambulance
as there was medical emergency – whether same
can be termed as violation of permit? Held No.
2020 ACJ 222 (P&H)
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)
15A Section 39 and 66 of the M V Act non registration of
vehicle and no permit – death of the passenger in the
auto rickshaw – driver of the auto rickshaw admitted
that there was no registration and no permit when
accident occurred – whether IC can be exonerated?
Held yes. But order of pay and recover is passed –

2019 ACJ 3091 (Bom)
But the vontrary view has been taken in 2021 ACJ 384 (Mad)
16 Vehicle which met with an accident was being plied
without the route permit – It is a settled principle
of law that non possession of route or deviation from
route does not constitute a defence in favour of IC
u/s 149(2) – 2018 ACJ 2804 (P&H)
17 Tribunal held that the IC has insured the vehicle
without verifying the fact that whether vehicle has
the permit or not and held IC liable whether
sustainable in eye of law? Held No. 2022 ACJ 37
(Guj)
18 Owner and diver of the offending vehicle failed to
prove valid permit IC exonerated and order of pay
and recovered passed. 2022 ACJ 1465 (Guj)
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 rewardas per
registration certificate 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)
4A IC filed an application for issuance of recovery
certificate returned by Tribunal with a direction
that application has to be filed u/O.21 R.11 of CPC –
Whether such order is sustainable? Held. No. IC is
entitled to get recovery certificate as prescribed
u/s 174 of M V Act.
2016 ACJ 1652 (Mad)
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 liabilityheld
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 liabilityheld 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), 2016 ACJ 2295 (P&H), AIR 2017 SC 3572 –
Firdaus vs. O.I. Com.
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), 2016 ACJ
1964 (HP) 2011 ACJ 705 (SC) = AIR 2011 SC 682,
Pushpa v/s Shakuntala, relied upon.
Hon'ble Full bench of the Supreme Court of India in the

case of Pappu v/s. Vinod Kumar Lambha, Civil Appeal
No.20962 of 2017, arising out of SLP No.29032 of
2015, dated 19.01.2018, reported in 2018 ACJ 690 (SC)
has relied upon the ratio laid down in the case of
Swaran Singh (supra) and held that an order of Pay
and Recover can be passed.
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
transfereeowner – Section 157 would come into play
only in the case of TP claim and shall not apply in
the case of transfereeowner.
2015 ACJ 1703 (P&H).
4 – Section 2(30), 50(1)(a)(i), 50(2)(b) and 55 – Central
MV Rules, Rule 55 and 57 – Transfer of vehicle –
Liability of registered owner – jeep dashed against a
rickshaw and passenger in rickshaw sustained fatal
injuries – State Government contended that jeep was
sold in public auction as scrap and was not to be
used on the road – further contented that as per
Section 50(2)(b) Rule 57, transferee has to move the
registering authority for transferring ownership of
the vehicle in his name and if it is not done blame
could not be attributed to the State Government –
Section 50(1)(a)(i) read with Rule 55 mandates that
transferor of the vehicle should report within 14
days from date of transfer to the registering
authority – If the jeep was sold as scrap, as Section
55, State Government was required to move Authority
for cancellation of registration is the said jeep but
not done – State Government held to be the owner and
held responsible.
2018 ACJ 1760 (Bom)
5 Section 165, 169 and 175 – Registered owner – non
impleadment of transferee owner – both transferor and
transferee owners are required to be joined as party
opponents.
2018 ACJ 1807 (Ker)
6 Section 50(1) r/w 2(30) – registered owner –

registered owner handed over possession of his car
after receiving payment from purchaser – car met with
an accident – Tribunal allowed compensation against
driver and transferee owner – HC observed that
transfer of ownership was not affected as per Section
50(1) and registered owner continued to be owner as
per section 2(30) – and passed an order of pay and
recover from registered owner – Appeal by registered
owner contending that accident occurred within 30
days from transfer and as per section 50(1)(b) when
period of 30 days has been provided and, therefore,
liability could not be fasten on registered owner –
Contention negativated by holding that owner means a
person as defined u/s 2(30) and not the transferee
owner Appeal dismissed by SC
2019 ACJ 1 – Prakash Chand v/s. Saveta Sharma, Naveen
Kumar v/s. Vijay Kumar, 2019 ACJ 6777 (SC), 2019 ACJ
1049 (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 covernote 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. 64VB 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

But if, the cancellation of IP was informed by
Insurance Company to the insured and RTO, IC is held
liable to pay amount of compensation.
2017 ACJ 540 (Ori)
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), 2016 ACJ 2401 (Guj) postal record
depicts the fact that notice was served after
the date of accident IC held liabile 2022
ACJ 1553 (Kar)
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
Hyderabad on 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 instead the respondent No.2
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. 166effect
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 insuredowner appeal allowed.
2008(7) SCC 526
against the owner
Devi
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 (Nontransport) 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

It was not tendered and in stead the respondent No.2
is said to have returned the original cover note and
2008(7) SCC 526


against the owner
Devi
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
proceedingmany 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)
16A Minor aged a6 years was plying the bike and his
sister aged about 12 years was pillion rider – accident
occurred and sister of the rider sustained injuries – IC
disputed its liability on the count that principle Volenti
non fit injuria is applicable in the present case and
therefore, minor girl may also be held negligent – whetehr
sustainable? Held – No.
2017 ACJ 2533 (Ker)
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 163A 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 IlkalKustagl, National Highway, a
bullock cart proceeding ahead of the said motor cycle
carrying ironsheet,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 163A 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 163A 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 163A 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 163A 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, 2019 ACJ 3146 (Kar), 2020 ACJ 61
(Kar)
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), 2018 ACJ 51 (Chh)
– Ningamma followed
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) HNB., 2017 ACJ 1506 (Sik),

2017 ACJ 2256 (Sik), 2018 ACJ 2017 (Gau), 2018 ACJ
2060 (Gau), 2022 ACJ 1120 (Mad)
But see 2017 (1) GLH 27 – ICICI Lombard vs.

Ashaben Pratap Vadher (Jst R P Dholaria), 2017 (1)
GLH, 2018 ACJ 327 (Guj) UII Com. vs. Manishaben D.
Parmar (Jst R P Dholaria), IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Com vs. Deepakbhai Bhikhabahi Patel, 2017
(2) GLR 1100 = 2017 ACJ 1793, ICICI Lombard vs.

Amrutben @ Amratben Dhameliy, 2017 (1) GLH 733 and
2016 ACJ 1050 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 1800 (Guj) (R P
Dholaria), 2018 ACJ 1488 (Guj). Also see 2018 ACJ
1110 (P&H)
Contrary view taken by Rajasthan High Court in

the case – 2017 ACJ 2797 (Raj)
In 2017 ACJ 1897 it has been held that claimant is
entitled for interim compensation u/s 140 only.
It is the contention of the IC that risk of

Rs.2,00,000/ is covered under personal accident
policy and therefore, IC is not liable to pay any
amount beyond 2,00,000/. Whether sustainable? Held
No. As same was taken as defence in the WS. 2021
ACJ 26 (Meg)
7A Claim raised in application controverted by Insurance
Company on ground that owner was not covered by
policy. Tribunal only deciding question about
maintainability of application and held that claim
petition is maintainable. High Court in revision set
aside order of the Tribunal. Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that before the Claims Tribunal, summary
procedure applies and, therefore, Tribunal cannot
decide issues arising in claim petition in piecemeal.
Bimlesh v/s N.I.Com, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2591
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 Cover (P.A.C) deceased stepped
into the shoes of the owner – whether such person is
entitled to claim any amount under the head of
“Personal Accident Cover”(PAC)? Held in view of IMT
2002, GR 36 only the registered owner is entitled
to get this benefit and not the person who has
stepped into the show of the owner 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), 2021

ACJ 393 (Har), 2021 ACJ 2706 (Mad), 2022 ACJ 246
(Mad)
10 Claim against Municipal Corporation accident caused
as no warning placed around the ditch – held claim of
pillion rider is maintainable before the MAC Tribunal
but claim of the driver of the bike is not
maintainable as he stepped into the shoe of the owner
and Civil Suit is maintainabile.
2017 (3) GLH 26 – Commissioner v/s Sureshbhai

Shamjibhai Sojitra.
11 OwnerDriver succumbed to injuries sustained by him

while he was plying the car which dashed with the
parked truck – Tribunal apportioned 40% contributory
negligence to the deceased and directed both the ICs
to pay compensation – whether sustainable? Held – No
– However, IC of the car is liable to pay under the
personal accident cover. LRs of deceased entitled to
recover 60% from the IC of the truck.

2018 ACJ 1929 (Gua)
HOME

39. Cover Note:
It was not tendered and in stead the respondent No.2
is said to have returned the original cover note and
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 covernote 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 Covernote – IC dispute it's

liability on the ground that Covernote 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),
But also see 2017 ACJ 1149 (Del)
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)
6A Commencement of the policy – IC produced computer

generated IP depicting time and date thereon –
whether can be relied upon? Held No. As per the
Section 65B of the Evidence Act, a document produced
by way of a electronic device is admissible in
evidence only if it satisfies the prerequisites of
Section 65B(4) of the evidence Act. 2017 ACJ 1196
(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.
8 Cover Note Photocopy of cover note produced by the

claimant and Driver and owner have failed to produce
the original of cover note – Tribunal exonerated IC
on the ground that Cover note has not been proved by
leading cogent evidence – Whether such order is

2016 ACJ 2776 (UK)
9 Cover note – pay and recover order – IC alleged that
cover note issued fraudulently by officer of the IC –
who was subsequently removed – IC failed to adduced
any evidence that Cover Note was ante dated – same
was issued when officer was on working with IC – IC
may not be stricto sensu liable but directed to pay
an recover
2018 ACJ 1301 (SC) – Magla Ram vs. OI Com.
10 IC disputed its liability on the ground that cover

note has been displaced no FIR in this connection
has been produced Whether IC can be exonerated?
Held No.
2019 ACJ 2845(Hyd)
11 Cover note Motor Vehicle Third Party Insurance

Rules, 1946 Rule 5 and 6 Cover note can be issued
for the period of two months only and it can be
issued for the period of one year and it should be
duly authenticated with the seal of the IC 2022 ACJ
1808 (Kar)
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 appellantInsurance
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 nondisclosure 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)
3 Hirepurchase agreement – u/s 2(30) – registered
owner sold vehicle on Hirepurchase agreement
and vehicle was in possession and control of the
purchaser at the time of accident – who can be
held liable? Held Transferee owner and driver
of the said vehicle and registered owner.
2017 ACJ 2614 (HP) HDFC Bank Resham (FB), 2015
ACJ 1513 (SC) followed
When control of the vehicle hired is with the
hirer, policy is deemed to be transferred along
with the vehicle – UPSRTC v/s. National
Insurance Com. 2021 ACJ 2282 (SC)
4 IC issued policy in favour of a person who is in
the actual possession of the vehicle but the
registered owner – accident occurred – IC disputed
its liability on the ground that insured is not the
registered owner – whether sustainable? HeldNo. It
was the duty of the IC to verify said fact before
issuing the Policy.
2017 ACJ 2636 (HP)
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)
1A Own damage – claim by a person who is not the
registered owner of the damaged vehicle – whether
claim petition at his behest is maintainable? Held.
Yes. As provided under the Sale of Goods Act.
2018 ACJ 714 (Mad)
1AA. Agent of the owner is not empowered to file
petition for own damage under the M V Ac.
2019 ACJ 162 (Kar)
1AAA Vehicle transferred in favour of third party but
the insurance policy not trandferred whether it
amounts to violation of Section 157(2) of the M
V Act? No. As provided u/s 157(1) of the Act,
insurance policy is deemed to be transferred.

2022 ACJ 1468 (AP)
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), 2016 ACJ 2417 (HP) – 2003
ACJ 534 (SC), Rikhi Ram v/s Sukhrania and 2006 ACJ
1441 (SC), UII Com v/s Tilak Singh followed.
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), 2017 ACJ 796 (Ker)
5 Vehicle transferred to transferee – policy renewed in
the name of original owner, though vehicle was transfered
– whether in such situation IC can be allowed to take
stand that nonrenewal of the policy in the name of new
owner will give it a chance to absolve its liability?
Held – No.
2017 ACJ 2267 (HP)
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), 2016 ACJ 2310 (P&H), 2022 ACJ
726 (Ker)
2 Public place agriculture field is public place?
Held Yes
2013 ACJ 30 (AP), 2016 ACJ 704 (Ker)
3 The premise of Indian Container Corporation is a
public place – held – yes. 2018 ACJ 2238 (All)
4 Raj Bhavan is a public place – 2019 ACJ 2764.
5 Vehicle parked in the garage it is public place –
2019 ACJ 2877.
6 Tea estate is the public place 2022 ACJ 2056 (Gau).
HOME

4 3. Use of Motor Vehicle, Militant Attack
HijackTerrorist 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), 2017
ACJ 544 (UK), 2018 ACJ 1207 (Sik) [Judgment of
Rita Devi v/s NIA Com, 2000 ACJ 801 (SC)
followed.
2 Murder Application u/s 163A whether maintainable?
Held yes. Only if motive and intention of the
accused person was not to kill deceased but other
person and during the scuffle deceased had also been
murdered by the accused.
2012 ACJ 1512 (Ker), 2017 ACJ 425 (HP), 2017 ACJ
2067 (Goa), 2018 ACJ 1941, 2019 ACJ 1464 (Pat) –
wherein it is held that only because vehicle was
backed (reversed) and crushed the deceased it can be
presumed that it was intentional murder.
2A Claim petition u/s 140 of the Act – murder of the
driver and Khalsi – whether maintainable? Held Yes.
2019 ACJ 950 (Pat)
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. 2017 ACJ
1481 (Mad).
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), 2017 ACJ 2178
HP) – case of tyre burst and its rim hit the injured.
5 Militant Attack HijackTerrorist 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 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), 2022 ACJ 1988 (Jhr)
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)
13 Victim/ claimant suffered injuries while he was
engaged in the work of harvesting soyabean – right
hand of victim was caught in the thresher – evidence
that power of propulsion was being transmitted from
tractor to the thresher during use of which the
accident occurred Whether IC can be held liable?
Held. Yes.
2016 ACJ 1587 (Bom), 2017 ACJ 1951 – In the said case
injured was loading and unloading good from the
stationary vehicle and it has been that accident
arose out of use of the Motor Vehicle.
14 Cleaner while helping the Driver to reverse the
vehicle came in contact with the live wire and died
due to electrocution – whether in such situation, LR
of the deceased can claim amount of compensation
under the M V Act? Held Yes.
2017 ACJ 721.
15 While unloading refrigerators from the stationary
vehicle, sustained fatal injuries claim petition u/s
163A Whether maintainable? held yes.
2018 ACJ 291 (Kar)

16 Driver of the truck parked the vehicle on the left
side of the road as engine was getting too hot – at
that point of time other vehicle hit him and he
sustainable fatal injuries – held, that accident
arose out of use of the motor vehicle and IC held
liable to pay compensation.
2018 ACJ 668 (P&H)
17 While deceased was alighting from bus, bundle of
clothes fell on his head – whether same can be said
to be arising out of use of motor vehicle? Held –
yes.
2018 ACJ 1719 (Bom)
18 – Owner of the car halted his vehicle on road side due
heavy rain and during waiting period carbon monoxide
gas got into car chamber and family members of the
owner suffocated due to the gas – Whether it can be
said that IC is liable under the principle of Arising
out of the use of the motor vehicle? Held Yes.
2019 ACJ 394 (Del)
HOME

4 4. 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). 2019 ACJ 628
(Raj)
2 Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Jacob
Thomas vs Pandian, dated 1st September, 2005, reported in 2006
ACJ 464, AIR 2006 Ker 77, 2006 (2) JCR 250, 2005 (4) KLT 545 has
held that Tribunal has powers to dismiss the claim petition for
default.
3 Whether claimants are entitled to claim interest for the
intervinig period i.e. from the date of dismissal of the claim
petiti0n till its restoration? There are two views.
One Yes – as held in the case reported in 2016 ACJ 2778 (Mad)
Two No As held in the case reported in 2016 ACJ 2768 (Ori)
HOME

4 5. 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)
3 Driving Licence Driver of the offending vehicle

produced photo copy (xerox) of DL – DL is valid and
no dispute with regard to its genuinity had been
raised – Tribunal held that since driver of the
offending vehicle produced photo copy (xerox) of DL,
it can be held that the driver of the offending
vehicle has proved the licence – It has come on
record that original DL is part of the record of the
Criminal Trial – Under these circumstances, SC held
that the driver of the offending vehicle has proved
the contents of the licence.
2016 ACJ 2157 (SC) – Rakesh Kumar v/s UII Com. Ltd.
4 Burden to prove that IP produced by claimant is fake
is in IC though claim petition was pending for long
time IC failed to produce relevant record like record
containing the receipt of premium, proposal form

register, name of agents etc. IC held liable.
2017 ACJ 2830 (Raj)
HOME

4 . Stationary Vehicle:
5A
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.
2018 ACJ 721 (SC) (FB) – Archit Saini v/s. O I Com.
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), 2017 ACJ 705
(P&H)
4 Truck driver applied sudden brakes and car following
said truck dashed into iron plates protruding 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)
6 Stationary vehicle – violation of Rule 109 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules and Section 117 and 122
of the MV Act IC of such Stationary vehicle is held
liable.
2017 ACJ 2360 (Kar)
7 Car was parked on the road when deceased who was
plying cycle tried to over take it – driver of the
car opened the door and because of that deceased fell
down and truck which was coming from behind crushed
him Whether driver of the car can be held
responsible? Held Yes.
2019 ACJ 404 (Del)
8 Stationary vehicle As per Regulation 15(2)(iv) pf
the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 – both the
vehicles can be held negligent – 2022 ACJ 113 (Ker)
9 Stationary truck – car hit on the rear portion of
said truck – SC held that driver of the stationary
car is solely negligent in causing the accident.
2022 ACJ 721 SC – K. Anusha v/s. Regional Manager
HOME

4 6. TractorTrolley:
1 Tractortrailer Tractortrolley 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) and 2(28) indicates that when trailer
is attached to tractor (propelled), it becomes motor
vehicle and therefore, IC is liable.
2016 ACJ 2367 (Guj), 2012 ACJ 1408 (Kar), 2012
ACJ 2737 (All) SC judgments followed, 2022 ACJ
1795 (Bom).
M.V. Act Section 61, 146, 147 Tractortrolley 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 in a case reported in 2013 ACJ 1496, is has been
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. 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 Sitting on 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. Because as per Rule 28 of
the Rules of the Road Regulations 1989, driver is not
supposed to allow ant person in the vehicle where
sitting capacity is only one. 2018 ACJ 1884 (Kar)
2012 ACJ 1738, 2017 ACJ 741, 2018 ACJ 2077
(P&H), 2018 ACJ 2778 (Mad), ACJ 2021 2170 (Mad)
– in this case the evidecne of eye witness and
contents of the FIR have been taken into
consideration to come to the conclusion that
deceased was sitting on the mudguard with the
driver and there was no trolley/trailer was
attached to the said tractor.
But order of pay and recover can be passed – 2015 ACJ
1677 (Mad).
4 Tractortrolley When trolley is attached with the
tractor is one vehicle – and same is to be treated as
Good Vehicle – 2018 ACJ 2109 (Mad) 2012 ACJ 2022
and 2117 (CHH)
5 Tractortrailer – Tractortrolley 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
2013 ACJ 2034 (ALL) – SC judgment reported in
1987 ACJ 411, Skandia Ins. v/s Kokilaben
Chandravadan relied upon.
7 Tractortrailer – IC disputed it's liability on the
ground that there was sitting capacity of only one
person and, therefore, claim could not have traveled
in the said tractortrailer as labourer whether
2013 ACJ 2331 (Kar) Death of coolie travelling
on the mudguard 2013 ACJ 2353 (Mad) – Bur see
SC Judgment wherein it is held that when IC has
charged additional premium to cover risk of 3
persons, IC is liable to make good
2017 ACJ 1725 (SC) – Mata Ram vs. NI Com
8 Tractortrailer 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 Tractortrolley – 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)
Contrary view – 2018 ACJ 2018 ACJ 1188 (P&H)
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.
11 Trolley attached with tractor in the trolley
agricultural products were transported when accident
occurred held that such tractor and trolley should
be treated as agricultural vehicle 2022 ACJ
1102(All)
HOME

4 7. 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)
4A If IC has failed to prove that when accident occurred
vehicle was not registered – IC cant not be
exonerate. Further held that non registration of
vehicle is not a defence available to IC u/s 149 of
the MV Act.

2017 ACJ 2557 (P&H)
5 Theft of the vehicle – vehicle was stolen on 2.1.2008
and temporary registration expired on 18.10.2007 – IC
disputed its liability on the ground that on the date
of theft, vehicle was not registered – whether
sustainable? Held – No. As, Section 39 of the Act,
makes it mandatory to ply vehicle on road only after
its registration but when vehicle is stolen when it
was not being plied on the road, IC can't be absolved
from its liability.
2017 ACJ 2308 (P&H), 2018 ACJ 2208 (P&H), 2022 ACJ
1008 (Del) Contrary view by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of U.I.I. Com. V/s. Sushil Kumar Godara,
2021 ACJ 2673 (SC)
6 Vehicle was insured on the basis of chassis number
and engine number there was no registration number
available as yet accident occurred injured filed
claim petition – disputed by IC – Whether
sustainable Held No. As no ground u/s 149(2) of the
Act is available to IC. 2020 ACJ 176 (HP)
7 Registration certificate contention is raised that
registration of the offending vehicle has expired on
15.03.2014 accident occurred on 27.01.2015
registration was renewed on 10.02.2015 same would
have registration from 15.03.2014 and IC can not be
exonerated 2022 ACJ 2295 (P & H)
HOME

4 8. 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

. Hit and Run Under Section 161:
49
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 maintainable
before the MACT? Held Yes.
2015 ACJ 203 (AP)
4 A close scrutiny of Sections 161 and 163 of the Act
will depict that fixed amount of compensation
provided under the special provision of Section 161
is a sort of interim compensation whereas the
compensation provided as per Solatium Scheme, 1989
formulated in terms of Section 163 of the Act is the
regular compensation. A scrutiny of Solatium Scheme,
1989 tells us that as per the said scheme the Central
Government have appointed “Claims Enquiry Officer”
and “Claims Settlement Commissioner” to decide the
compensation payable in respect of hit and run motor
accidents.

2014 (0) Supreme (AP) 15 A Prakash v/s general
Insurance Com.
HOME

5 0. 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 ownerdriver 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

5 1. 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 semiliterate 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 driverowner
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).
1A Involvement of the vehicle – 2018 ACJ 729 (SC) (FB) –
Anil v/s. NIA Com.
1AA HC held that FIR was filed after one month against
the unknown vehicle but chargesheet is filed against
the Maruti car and, therefore, involvement of the
Maruti car is not proved Sustainable? Held No.
2022 ACJ 2003 (SC) Janabai v/s. ICICI Lombard
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, 2017 ACJ 491 (Raj), 2017 (1) GLR
463 – NIACL vs. Giraben D. Patel. Also see following
judgment.
Negligence accident between unknown truck and jeep,
resulting into injury to the passenger in the jeep
injured put blame on the unknown truck while giving
statement before the police whereas, the claim
petition is preferred against the jeep inter alia
alleging negligence of jeep driver whether
sustainable? Held No. 2022 ACJ 2105 (Bom)
read along with following judgment.
5A In the case of Halappa v/s Malik Sab, Civil Appeal

Nos. 22911 & 22912 of 2017 (Arising out of SLPs 6891
& 6892 of 2017), dated 15/12/2017, injured claimant
claimed that when he approached the tractor, the
driver of the tractor was unable to bring it to a
halt as a result of which it turned turtle and
collided with the claimant resulting in his
sustaining grievous injuries. An FIR was registered
on the basis of the statement of the injured claimant
that at the time accident he was sitting on the
Muddgaurd of the tractor.
Tribunal after taking into consideration deposition
of eye witness, which is to an effect that injured
claimant was not sitting on the Muddgaurd and
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the tractor. Which is corroborated
with the deposition of injured claimant, held IC
liable to pay amount of compensation.
High Court reversed the findings of the tribunal by
holding that in the FIR which was filed by the

injured it has been stated that he was sitting on the
Muddgaurd and, therefore, IC is not liable.
But the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of has held that the finding of fact recorded by
the Tribunal on the basis of substantive evidence
could not have been reversed purely on the basis of
the FIR. The Tribunal had noted the admission of the
witness of the insurer in the course of his cross
examination that the insurer had maintained a
separate file in respect of the accident but the
insurer did not produce either the file or the report
of the investigator in the case. Moreover, no
independent witness was produced by the insurer to
displace the version of the incident as deposed to by
the injured claimant and by the eye witness.
5A When addition premium is paid for the passenger in
the tractor – IC can be held liable to pay
compensation – Asha Devi State Insurance and PF
Department 2021 ACJ 2679 (SC).
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).
9 FIR is not sine qua none for filing claim petition –
if other documents are sufficient, claim petition can
not be dismissed on the count that FIR is not filed.
2018 ACJ 1135 (P&H)
10 Contents of an FIR is not the conclusive proof – oral
evidence will prevail over FIR – 2019 ACJ 953 (Mad)
11 Involvement of the vehicle – if the description given
in the claim petition is different then the
description given in chargesheet and screen shot of
the vehicle is not the conclusive proof and,
therefore, IC can not be held liable – 2022 ACJ 181
(Tri)
HOME

5 3. 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 nonjoinder 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 nonjoinder 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

5 4. 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

5 5. 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

5 6. 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), 2016 ACJ 1999 (J&K)
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 = 2016 ACJ 1448 – UII Com v/s
Hasumatiben Kanubhai Patel, 2016 ACJ 2307 (Kar),
2016 ACJ 2709 (HP).
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).
8 Damage to property – subrogation Whether claim of IC
in tis purported right of subrogation against owner
and IC of offending vehicle is maintainable before
the claims tribunal? Held Yes.
2016 ACJ 2182 (Kar)
9 Jeep fell into orchard and caused damage to apple
trees – court considered apple trees as good source
of income and awarded compensation.
2018 ACJ 1213 (HP)
10 Claim by tenant on the ground that he incurred the
expenses of repairing of compound wall – Owner filed
an affidavit stating that she is not going to prefer
claim petition and tenant incurred expenses – Inspite
of this Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground
that claim petition is not maintainable at the behest
of the tenant – Whether sustainable? Held No.
2019 ACJ 1379 (J&K)
HOME

5 7. 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 permission 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)
1A 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).
1B Claim petition preferred u/s 163A has been dismissed
– thereafter petition u/s 166 of the M V Act has been
preferred whether principle of Res Judicata would
apply in this case? Held Yes.
2016 ACJ 1343 9Bombay Goa)
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

5 8. Mediclaim:
1 Mediclaim – when certain amount is paid under the
mediclaim policy, whether the claimant can claim the
said amount in 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), 2016 ACJ
2759 (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

. Did not Suffer Financial Loss/Government
59
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
(Ajay Kumar v/s Raj Kumar relied upon)
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.
3 When there is direct evidence that a Government
Servant has suffered loss due to nonpromotion, actual
loss of income which he could have received if he were
promoted, should be taken into consideration for
calculation of amount of compensation.
2018 ACJ 297 (Raj)
4 Injured aged about 44 and was working as village
Extension officer – age of superannuation is 56 – HC taken
into consideration the income which injuried could have
received after the retirement and applied multiplier of 9
(age group 0f 56 to 60) – 2019 ACJ 1162 (Ker) – Para 27.
HOME


6 0. Railway:
1 Unmanned level crossing accident by Train whether
Rail authority is liable to pay compensation Held
Yes.
2013 ACJ 1653, 2017 ACJ 781 (MP), 2018 ACJ 1823
(Kar)
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. 2018 ACJ 1548 (MP)
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

6 1. 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)2016 ACJ 2516 (All).
School bus permit expired – Whether non possession
of permit is valid defence for IC Held Yes.
2018 ACJ 2139 (P&H)
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
4A Vehicle was carrying more than 9+1 passenger. IC
contended that vehicle was over loaded as 2022
passengers were travelling in it at the time of
accident – In fact noly one claim petition has been

preferred – Whether IC under this circumstance can be
exonerated – Held No. 2019 ACJ 2858 (Bom)
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.
7 Overloading – 18 passengers were travelling as against
the capacity of 2 passengers – only one person filed claim
petition IC disputed its liability – whether
sustainable? Held No. As only one claim petition is
preferred, it can't be turned down on the count of
overloading. 2020 ACJ 140 (Tri)
8 Overloading IC disputed its liability on the ground
that against the carrying capacity of 44 passengers, 63
persons were travelling in breach of the permit Whether
IC can be exonerated? Held No. As not more than 44 claim
petitions have been preferred. 2022 ACJ 1675 (UK)
HOME

6 2. 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)
1A Victim of the accident died natural death during

pendency of the claim petition – Whether LR of the
deceased are entitled for compensation calculated on the
basis of multiplier of each completed year from the date
of accident to natural death of the victim. 2017 GCD 235
– (R P Dholaria J)
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., 2017 ACJ 413 (Chh)
4 DriverOwner died before the reply could be filed in
the claim petition – Tribunal deleted the said opponent as
his LR have not been joined – Whether such order is
sustainable? Held No. As Section 155 of the MV Act

would apply and CPC dealing with abatement would not
apply.
2016 ACJ 1554 (HP)
5 When accident occurred owner of the offending vehicle
was alive but he died before the claim petition was
preferred – because of this notice of claim petition could
not be served upon the owner of the offending vehicle –
Lrs of the owner not joined in the claim petition –
Whether IC can be exonerated under this circumstance?
Held – No. As on the date of accident he was alive
2021 ACJ 225 (Bom)
6 – Proceedings under the M V Act does not abate on the
death of the injured claimant – 2021 ACJ 2576 – O.I.Com.
V/s. Kahlon
7 Tribunal should adopt Multiplier of the actual period
for which the injured lived his life after the accident.
2021 ACJ 2531 – same view has been taken in the case of
Madhuben Mahesh Patel v/sJoseph Francis, First Appeal
No.1528 of 2009, 15.12.2015, Jst Akil Kureshi (after the
decision of the reference on 14.12.2014).
HOME

6 3. 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), 2017 ACJ 201
(Chh), 2018 ACJ 33 (Kar), 2018 ACJ 1478 (Mad),
2022 ACJ 700 (All)
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), 2016
ACJ 1704 (All)
But also see 2018 ACJ 911 (Mad)
3 Fitness certificate – By virtue of Section 56 no
vehicle which has no fitness certificate can be plied
on the road – if it is being plied without there
being fitness certificate IC shall be exonerated.
2019 ACJ 16 (Ker) (Constitution Bench)
4 Offending truck has no fitness certificate and its
tail lights and brake lights were not working –
whether IC of such vehicle is liable? Held No.
2021 ACJ 184 (Mad)
5 Offending fire engine was not having fitness
certificate would be sufficient to exonerate the IC
Held No. More particularly when there is no
specific clause in the policy that in absence of
fitness certificate IC can avoid its liability. 2022
ACJ 1799 (MP)
6 Contention is raised by IC that offending vehicle
(maxicab) was not fit to be plied as a commercial
vehicle after 22.10.2008 and though issued policy

covering risk from 17.02.2009 to 16.02.2010 under
these circumstances, IC is held liable 2022 ACJ
2319 (UK)
HOME

6 4. 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 loadunload goods is covered
IMT17 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 IMT13 (Second
Driver) 2014 ACJ 1032, 2017 ACJ 2273 (UK)
Judgment on IMT 15 (Ownercumdriver) – 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)
Sales representative of the car show room was

plying the car during the tes drive and met with an

accident it was contended that he such sales
representative may be treated as cover in view of the
fact that he was having valid licence to ply the
offending car and may be treated as paid driver
Held No. However, IC is directed to pay and recover.
2022 ACJ 1757 (Mad)
3 MAC Tribunal is competent to decide the quantum
of compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act
2022 ACJ 1771 (Gau)
HOME

6 5. 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 loadunload goods is covered
IMT17 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 IMT13 (Second
Driver) 2014 ACJ 1032,
Second Driver – 2016 ACJ 1186 (Guj)
Judgment on IMT 15 (Ownercumdriver) –
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 Ownerdriver – Spouse of the owner 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), 2017 ACJ 2209 (MP).
Also see 2014 ACJ 1574 (Del), wherein it is held that
as per IMT GR36 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 ownerdriver.
Also see 2017 ACJ 862 (HP) wherein it is held that
spouse of the owner i.e. husband can be treated
as the TP.
Pillion rider who is also the owner of the vehicle
met with an accident – filed claim petition
Whether maintainable? HeldNo.
2017 ACJ 2372 (Ker0
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 NonFare 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
1A Vicarious liability – IC disputed its liability on
the ground that its authorised agent was only
authorised to collect premium but issue policy – and
since policy was also issued by the agent, IC cant be
held responsible. Tribunal was accordingly directed
to frame issue on vicariously liablity and decide the
same.
2017 ACJ 2310 (Gau)
2 Tractortrolley – 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), 2018 ACJ 2664 (Chh)
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

6 7. Central Motor Vehicles Rules:
1 Central M.V. Rules, 1989, Rule41 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). 2017 ACJ 1682 (Bom) Anil
Prabhakar Tandkalkar vs. State of Maha
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), 2017 ACJ 744 (Mad)
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.
Om Prakash v/s Reliance G.I. Com 2017 ACJ 2747,
2016 ACJ 892 (P&H) – Dharamendra v/s. UII Com. 2022
ACJ 158 (SC)

8 Interest – IC was arrayed as party to claim
petition at the later stage – Whether interest can be
ordered to pay from the date on which IC is arrayed
as party opponent?
Held No. U/s 171 claimant is entitled for
interest from the date of claim petition.
2016 ACJ 1612 (HP)
9 Whether a Fire Tender use at the Airport can be
said to be the Motor Vehicle as defined u/s 2(28)
of the M V Act, inspite of the fact that Circulars
issued by the Government to the effect that same is
not Motor Vehicle. Held Yes.
2016 ACJ 1890 (Del).
9A Concrete mixture machine would fall under the
definition of 2(28)? Held yes. 2018 ACJ 2186 (Bom)
10 Contention that offending vehicle was being driven
by the driver under the influence of the liquor/alcohol.
Whether, IC can be exonerated under such eventuality?
Held No. Section 185 of the Act will come to the rescue
of the IC only if it is proved that driver had consumed
liquor/alcohol beyond the permissible limit, which not
an offence.
2016 ACJ 1783 (HP), 2016 ACJ 1952 (P&H)
11 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – U/s 357A Victim

Compensation Scheme payment received thereunder –
whether that can be the base to deny compensation to the
victim? Held No.
2016 ACJ 2115 (Del)
12 Several steps in an elaborate Scheme have been
enumerated to ensure that compensation is deposited.
2017 ACJ 253 (Mad)

13 – Nexus between injury and death – when qualified
Doctor has deposed that deceased might have been
traumatized due to injuries sustained in the accident –
there is no reason to disbelieve it. 2017 ACJ 663
(Kar), 2017 ACJ 2352 (Guj), 2018 ACJ 45 (Raj) – 1992 ACJ
321 (Guj) relied upon, 2018 ACJ 497 (Kar), 2018 ACJ 1398
(All), 2018 ACJ 2201 (Mad), 2020 ACJ 249 (Mad), 2021 ACJ
316 (Ker), 2022 ACJ 638 (Ker),2022 ACJ 754 (SC) – Afsana
v/s. Kundu Knit Fab Pvt. Ltd.
But also see 2018 ACJ 902 (Kar)
14 Persons travelling in the Ambulance met with an
accident IC disputed its liablity on the ground that
risk of such person/passenger is not covered – whetehr
2017 ACJ 928 (Ker)
15 – Marine Policy – Transit Policy – Section 147 of M V
Act – Section 79 of Marine Insurance Policy – Whether
hirer of the goods whose goods were damaged in the
accident can prefer a claim petition before the Tribunal
as Third Party? Held No. it is not maintainable. The
New India Assurance Company Limited vs. M/s. Tata AIG
General Insurance Company Limited, (Writ Petition No.984
OF 2010) = 2016 (0) Supreme (Kar) 14.
16 Case of Split multiplier – Deceased was aged about
58 years – Court granted multiplier of 2 for loss of
salary income and granted multiplier of 5 for the
pension income
2017 ACJ 1583 (HP), also see, where no split multiplier
has been applied 2017 ACJ 2391 (Cal), 2018 ACJ 261 –
Wherein it has been held that split multiplier can't be
apply, SC judgment delivered in the case of Puttamma
v/s. K L Narayana Reddy, 2014 ACJ 526 (SC) has been
followed. 2022 ACJ 1167 (P&H)

Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to apply split
multiplier in the case of R. Valli v/s. TNSTC, 2022 ACJ
956 (SC); Sumathi v/s. NI Com. 2022 ACJ 1315
Deduction – pension – whether the amount of family
pension received by claimant should be deducted while
computing loss of dependency Held No. 2013 ACJ 1441
(SC) and 1999 ACJ 10 (SC) followed. 2018 ACJ 2203
(Kar)
Employees' Family Benefit Scheme – whether to be
deducted from the amount of comepnsation? Held No.
Sebastiani Lakra v/s. NI Com, 2019 ACJ 34.
16 Wild Life Protection Act – Zoo Tiger killed the man
who visited zoo – Delhi incident – Whether Zoo Authority
is liable to pay compensation – Held Yes.
2017 ACJ 1881 (Del)
17 Whether it is necessary to plea negligence in the
claim petition Held No.
2017 ACJ 1973 (HP)
18 Res ipsa loquitur whether non examination of an eye
witness is fatal for the claimants? Held No.
2017 ACJ 1983 (Chh)
19 – Public Insurance Act, 1991 – Section 6 and 3(2) –
Bus came in contact with live electricity wire –
Claimants preferred claim petition before the Collector
under the 1991 Act Whether claim petition under the MV
Act maintainable? Held Yes. As there is no embargo.
2017 ACJ 2071 (MP)
20 Limitation Act 1963 – Art.82 and 113 – Suit for
damages for death of person under the Fatal Accidents
Act, 1855 – Limitation to file suit is 2 years u/A 82
not 3years u/A 113 from the date of accident. Damini
v/s managing Director, 2017 ACJ 2865 (SC)
21 Streamlining of procedure for disposal of MACP

cases – Direction – Rajesh Tyagi – 2018 ACJ 1220 (Del)
22 Whether more than owners are entitled to claim
compensation – held yes.
2018 ACJ 1322 (Kar)
23 – Insured made part payment in case – remaining
amount was sought to be paid by cheque – cheque
dishonoured due to techincal reason – insured issued
another cheque – from which date such contravt would
come into effect? Held from the date on which entire
payment is made and not from the part payment made.
2018 ACJ 1484 (P&H)
24 Execution – How award of the MACT can be executed?
2018 ACJ 1900 (Raj)
25 Suppression of material facts – IP obtained by
suppressing material fact – whether IC can be held
liable? Held No. 2019 ACJ 1234.
26 Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP) –
Directions and guideline for early disposal of MACPs
2019 ACJ 1245 – Rajesh Tyagi v/s. Jaibir Singh (Delhi) –
followed by Supreme Court – 2019 ACJ 1291 (SC) M R
Krishna v/s. NIA Com.
27 Vehicle used for illegal activities like smuggling
– Whether in such situation IC can be exonerated? Yes.
2019 ACJ 1484 (Mad)
28 Smart Card – licence – IC disputed its liability on
the ground that as per the notification dated 1 st August,
2014, only smart card licence are deemed to be valid –
as driver of the offending vehicle did not possess smart
card driving licence IC pleaded exoneration – whether
sustainable? Held No. As IC failed to examine anyone
from RTO. 2019 ACJ 1508 (Gau)
29 Advocate's fee – advocate can not charge
professional fee on percentage basis – it is a

professional misconduct – 2019 ACJ 2953 (Ker)
30 – Whether the amendment of 2019 with respect to
Section 166 (3) of the M V Act has came into effect?
Held No.
2021 ACJ 284 (All) – 2022 ACJ 79 (Chh)
31 Whether Dozer used in the mine can be considered as
the Vehicle u/s 2(28) of the M v Act/ Hels Yes.
2021 ACJ 2203 (Chh)
32 In the Driving Licence name of the mother is
mentioned instead of father – said fact is proved by the
claimant – whether IC can be exonerate on that count –
Held – No.
2021 ACJ 2654 (Kar)
33 Act policy – pillion rider extra premium paid to
cover risk of Rs.16 collected under the head “extra
Loading” such extra premium paid to cover risk of
Rs.16 collected under the head “extra Loading” can not
be held as addition premium paid to cover the risk of
the pillion rider.
2022 ACJ 572 (Mad)
34 Drunken driving – order of pay and recover – 2022
ACJ 650 (Kar)
35 DLSA Karnataka – Income Chart 2022 ACJ 819 (Kar)
36 Owner filed an application u/O9 R.13 for setting
aside exaprte award interalia contending that notice
could not be served served upon him and he was insured
at the relevant point of time but Tribunal has held him
liable While restoring the claim petition, Tribunal
assessed compensation afresh held not sustainable
2022 ACJ 1043 (All)
37 PA Personal accident risk of 2,00,000 is covered
for the injuries mentioned in the schedule of the IP
owner has not sustained the injuries mentioned in the

schedule of the IP, therefore, IC is not liable to pay
any amount of compensation 2022 ACJ 1424 A A
Sahedhani.
38 HUF Income Karta died High Court held that
income of HUF can not be treated as income of the
deceased Karta Therefore, share of the Karta out of
the HUF income assessed and compensation is calculated
on such income 2022 ACJ 1566 (AP)
39 Person travelling in a vehicle as unauthorized
person or gratuitous person and he is thrown out of the
said vehicle and crushed by the said vehicle can be
treated as Third Party PT? Held no. 2022 ACJ 1585
(Mad)
40 Package Policy Words "package policy" not scored
out, would make it Act package policy when no additional
premium is paid to cover the risk of the passengers
Held such policy is a Act policy only ans such passenger
can be held to be gratuitous passengers only 2022 ACJ
1711 (Sik)
41 Accident occurred in 2009 IP was effective upto
2005 As per the RTO record the IP was "Long Term Act
Policy". Tribunal relied on that and held that IC is
liable Sustainable? Held No. As the "Long Term Act
Policy" was kept in abeyance and as the OD premium was
paid, the IP can not be held to be Act Policy. 2022
ACJ 1955 (Bom).
42 Accident occurred in 2019 claim petition filed in
the year 2022 IC raised objection u/s 166(3) Whether
sustainable? Held No. 2022 ACJ 2093 (Chh)
43 Pillion rider can not be held negligent unless
there is specific evidence to that effect 2022 ACJ
2255 (All)
45 Employee of the state Transport after the finishing

his job as driver was returning home in the bus owned by
his employee, without ticket whether such an employee
can be treated as the gratuitous passenger? Held No
2022 ACJ 2284 (Mad)
HOME
* * * * *
* * *

Macp Important Judgments. December.2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Macp Important Judgments. December.2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOTOR

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.2

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.3

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.4

3 ­ Medical negligence­ sterilization operation­

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.5

2 ­ NFL application not filled along with main

F.A. 1749 of 2012, dated 3/3/14 (Coram Jst.

4 ­ Constructive res judicata ­ Whether order passed

F.A. No. 264 of 2005 dated 15/02/2013, Minor

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.6

Judgment delivered in the case of 2012

6 ­ An application u/s 140 has to be decided as

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.7

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.8

3 ­ Death of owner of vehicle­ application by claimant

6 ­ Whether Tribunal can dismiss an application

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.9

7 ­ Amendment in claim petition preferred u/s 163A­

8­ O­6 R­17 – IC moved an application for impleading

9 ­ Powers to take additional evidence­ when can be

10 ­ Whether failure of the driver to produce licence

11 ­ Execution – Attachment of residential

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.10

Karan Singh v/s Manoharlal, MP High Court,

14 ­ DL­ IC moved an application for direction against

15 ­ Claims tribunal and civil court­ Jurisdiction –

16­ O.6 R.17 ­ Amendment of claim petition – claimant

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.11

1A­ Whether Tribunal has suo motu powers to convert a

1B­ Claim petition u/s 163A in respect of accident

2018 ACJ 2104 (P&H) – Dhannalal v/s. D.P. Vijayvagiya,

2 ­ Unknown assailant fired on driver while he was

2000 ACJ 801 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1658 (MP), one

3 ­ U/s 163A­ truck capsized­ driver died­ whether

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.12

4 ­ New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand

It was forcefully argued by the counsel

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.13

2009 (13) SCC 710 – Ningmma v/s United India.

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.14

2012 ACJ 1­ Sinitha but also see A.Sridhar,

9 ­ U/s 163A­ whether the claim petition u/s 163A is

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.15

10 ­ U/s 163A – procedure and powers of Tribunal­

11 ­ U/s 163A­ deceased died due to heart attack­

Culpable Homicide­ Altercation between

12 ­ u/s 163A­ Minor girl travelling in the Auto

13 ­ U/s 163A­ whether the compensation has to be

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.16

14 ­ Earlier direction of High Court to disposed of

18 ­ U/s 163A­ whether driver of the offending vehicle

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.17

2012 ACJ 2206 (Ker)­ 2004 ACJ Deepal G. Soni

2012 ACJ 2292 (Kar) – 2008 ACJ 2148 (SC),

But see 2016 ACJ 2529 (Ker) where after following

23 ­ Conversion of an application preferred u/s 166 to

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.18

25 ­ The law laid down in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.19

28 ­ Claim petition u/s 166 and 163­A­ An application

30 ­ 163­A­ When it is proved that claimant/deceased

2013 ACJ 2586 (AP) Bajaj Allianz v/s Gaddam

3 Medical negligence sterilization operation

2 NFL application not filled along with main

4 Constructive res judicata Whether order passed

6 An application u/s 140 has to be decided as

3 Death of owner of vehicle application by claimant

6 Whether Tribunal can dismiss an application

7 Amendment in claim petition preferred u/s 163A

8 O6 R17 – IC moved an application for impleading

9 Powers to take additional evidence when can be

10 Whether failure of the driver to produce licence

11 Execution – Attachment of residential

14 DL IC moved an application for direction against

15 Claims tribunal and civil court Jurisdiction –

16 O.6 R.17 Amendment of claim petition – claimant

1A Whether Tribunal has suo motu powers to convert a

1B Claim petition u/s 163A in respect of accident

2 Unknown assailant fired on driver while he was

3 U/s 163A truck capsized driver died whether

4 New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand

2012 ACJ 1 Sinitha but also see A.Sridhar,

9 U/s 163A whether the claim petition u/s 163A is

10 U/s 163A – procedure and powers of Tribunal

11 U/s 163A deceased died due to heart attack

Culpable Homicide Altercation between

12 u/s 163A Minor girl travelling in the Auto

13 U/s 163A whether the compensation has to be

14 Earlier direction of High Court to disposed of

18 U/s 163A whether driver of the offending vehicle

2012 ACJ 2206 (Ker) 2004 ACJ Deepal G. Soni

23 Conversion of an application preferred u/s 166 to

25 The law laid down in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna

28 Claim petition u/s 166 and 163A An application

30 163A When it is proved that claimant/deceased

31 163A Driver and Cleaner sustained injuries while

32 Judgments of Sinitha and Shila Dutta are referred

33 Conversion of an application u/s 163A to one u/s

35 U/s 163A Whether the IC is required to be

36 Whether a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable

37 Second Schedule of M.V. Act needs to be revised

38 Claimant of claim petition preferred u/s 163A are

39 Claim petition preferred u/s 163A – joint

40 Amount awarded u/s 140 can not be order to be

44 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valiben

2 Accident occurred in Nepal while deceased was on

3A Award passed by Tribunal – Execution petition for

4 In accident vehicle got damaged claim petition

5 Jurisdiction Damage to property of owner whether

6 Jurisdiction after the death of her husband,

7 U/s 166(2) – jurisdiction of Tribunal Claimant

7A Territorial Jurisdiction – even if accident

9 Jurisdiction where a claim petition is

11 Estoppel Consumer court held that driver was

14 Limitation U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its

14A Limitation for filing claim petition Section

15 Tribunal dismissed claim petition on the ground

16 Claim petition for own damage – whether

16A Own damage – claimant is only entitled to actual

1A Major Sons are entitled to prefer an application

1B U/s 166 of the M V Act, there concept of Legal

2 CoClaimant himself was negligent in causing the

3 Dependants death of unmarried woman living

4 Meaning of legal representative is given u/s 2(11)

4A Earning wife – succumbed to the injuries – claim

5 Legal representative live in relationship second

7 Whether on the basis of succession certificate,

7A Whether on the natural death of the one of the

1987 ACJ 561 (SC) GSRTC v/s Ramanbhai

9 Legal representative Adopted daughter whether

10 Legal representative death of member of a

11 Remarriage of Widow Whether disentitled her to

13 Claim petition filed by the children of deceased

14 Legal representative live in relationship second

2007 (7) SCJ 467 Hafizun Begum v/s Md.

16 Married sons and daughters can be considered as

2015 ACJ 1180 (P&H). 1987 ACJ 561 (SC) –

17 Agent of victim – Whether owner can prefer claim

18 Mother of the deceased died after three year of

19 Widow mother of the deceased – mother working as

20 Abrogation of Right – death of the mother

2 Limitation U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its