Stay updated with key 2023—2024 High Court Cases on the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This concise overview highlights recent HCC cases on expanded ownership liability, enhanced victim compensation, and relaxed procedural standards — shedding light on how courts are advancing justice and fairness under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
A. Motor Vehicles — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 2(30), 166, 168, 173, 146(1) and 196 — “Owner” of motor vehicle — Who is — Person in whose possession and control motor vehicle is, as a matter of right — Registered owner when not liable for accidents — Legislative intent behind definition of word “owner” under S. 2(30) — Held, underlying legislative intention of wider definition of owner adopted under 1988 Act, is to include in definition of “owner” a person in possession of a vehicle, either by an agreement of lease/hypothecation or under a hire purchase agreement so that a person in control and possession of vehicle should be construed as “owner” and not registered “owner” alone — Legislative intent is that registered owner of vehicle should not be held liable if vehicle was not in his possession and control [Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Manish Kumar, (2023) 4 HCC (Del) 738]
B. Motor Vehicles — Compensation — Enhancement of — Loss of future earnings — Held, employer’s contributions to ESI and PF are for benefit of employee’s estate — Determination of income should include ESI and PF contribution [Chitrasen v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 4 HCC (Del) 758]
C. Motor Vehicles — Compensation — Enhancement of — For purchase and maintenance of artificial limb — Tribunal granted a sum of 5 lakhs as compensation though it costs more — Appellant aged around 28 years at time of accident — Life of artificial limb is about 5 years — Tribunal should cover compensation for at least 30 years — Held, fair compensation to be granted to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible — Award modified [Chitrasen v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 4 HCC (Del) 758]
D. Motor Vehicles — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 166 — Claimant sustaining permanent disability and Insurance Company resisting claim — Held, vehicle being driven by driver in violation of permissible speed limits and he had run over three people before coming to a halt — Appeal partly allowed — Compensation modified [Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vishnu, (2023) 1 HCC (All) 133]
E. Motor Vehicles — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 166 — Standard of proof in motor vehicle claims — “Preponderance of probability” or “beyond reasonable doubt” — Held, deposition of witnesses on site claimed rash and negligent driving — In claim under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of death, rash and negligent act against driver, has to be proved based on preponderance of probabilities and not on test of beyond reasonable doubt [A.P. SRTC v. Mallik Rekhi, (2024) 1 HCC (AP) 78]
F. Motor Vehicles — Compensation — Just and reasonable compensation — Power of Commissioner to pass just compensation — Commissioner has all powers of a civil court under CPC — Held, once actual occurrence of accident is established, role of tribunal would be to award compensation which is just and reasonable — Strict rules of evidence as in a criminal trial cannot be applied in compensation cases and standard of proof is of “preponderance of probability” [Karnati Ramesh Reddy v. Sudhakar Reddy, (2023) 1 HCC (AP) 89]
