{"id":333271,"date":"2024-10-17T16:00:31","date_gmt":"2024-10-17T10:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=333271"},"modified":"2024-10-23T14:30:10","modified_gmt":"2024-10-23T09:00:10","slug":"delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Mere violation of Motor Vehicles Act provisions does not amount to negligence\u2019; Delhi HC modifies MACT\u2019s order"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed under Section 173<\/a> of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988<\/a> (‘MV Act’) to challenge the order dated 20-02-2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. said that the Tribunal had rightly assessed that the driver (appellant) was driving in a rash and negligent manner which is why there was no scope for contributory negligence, and held that respondent 2 along with the driver were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to respondent 1.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

As per the facts of the present matter, on 01-06-2004, respondent 1 was riding his Chetak Scooter along with his brother-in-law from Sangam Vihar to Subhash Camp. When respondent 1 reached near a shop named Munna Auto Welder in Devli, a scooter (offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with his vehicle.<\/p>\n

Resultantly, respondent 1 fell from his scooter and sustained grievous head injuries. He was immediately taken to the Batra Hospital for his treatment. Thereafter, a First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered at Sangam Vihar Police Station and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the driver under Sections 279<\/a>\/338<\/a>1<\/sup><\/a> of the Indian Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’).<\/p>\n

Subsequently, respondent 1 filed a claim before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident. In the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the driver was driving in a rash and negligent manner which caused grievous injuries to respondent 1 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,72,922\/- with interest at 9% to be payable by the driver.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by this decision, the driver filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court stated that these issues arose for adjudication in the present matter:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether respondent 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether respondent 2, allegedly being a registered owner of the offending vehicle, be made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to respondent 1.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \n

    Issue 1:<\/h3>\n

    The Court noted the driver’s argument wherein he stated that respondent 1 was driving his vehicle rashly as he failed to see the offending vehicle coming from the opposite direction, despite being at a reasonable distance of 10 feet, which indicated that respondent 1 was driving his vehicle in a high speed and contributed to the accident.<\/p>\n

    The Court relied on Prem Lal Anand<\/span> v. Narendra Kumar<\/span> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1900<\/a> wherein it was observed that negligence cannot be determined by way of a strict formula, but by looking into the facts and circumstances of a case. Moreover, in case of contributory negligence, it is necessary for the courts to determine whether both parties had the means to exercise reasonable care, thereby avoiding the accident.<\/p>\n

    The Court noted the driver’s contention that respondent 1 was neither having a valid driving license nor was he wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, which amounted to contributory negligence.<\/p>\n

    Further, the Court perused Mohd. Siddique<\/span> v. National Insurance Co.<\/span> (2020) 3 SCC 57<\/a> and found it pertinent to mention that driving a vehicle without a license was punitive as per the provisions of the MV Act. However, it was said that the same itself does not lead in finding negligence with respect to the accident.<\/p>\n

    The Court stated that mere absence of driving license and vehicular insurance did not amount to contributory negligence on part of respondent 1 as the same had no impact on the accident and the grievous injuries caused to him. The Court also acknowledged that wearing a helmet played a significant role in the present matter because respondent 1 suffered grievous head injuries in the accident.<\/p>\n

    The Court found it appropriate to state that the strict principles of evidence were inapplicable to claims filed under the MV Act and that the requirement of standard of proof was one of ‘preponderance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as had been reiterated in a plethora of cases including Parmeshwari<\/span> v. Amir Chand<\/span> AIR 2011 SC 1504<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Thus, the Court opined that respondent 1 could not be said to be rash and negligent in driving his vehicle as per the preponderance of probabilities. The Court also perused the impugned order and stated that the Tribunal had rightly adjudicated the issue of negligence.<\/p>\n

    Issue 2:<\/h3>\n

    The Court observed that the intent of the legislature was that the registered owner, as reflected in the records of the Registering Authority, should primarily be considered as the ‘owner’ for the purposes of the MV Act, except in cases of minor or an agreement of hire-purchase, lease, or hypothecation, as explicitly stated in Section 2(30)<\/a> of the MV Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    The Court perused the relevant documents on record which revealed that the offending vehicle along with the registration documents were delivered to the driver by respondent 2 and the receipt dated 19-12-1998 had the signature of the driver. However, the Court mentioned that the said document seemed vague as it held no authenticity of the contents mentioned therein and there was no other document pertaining to the alleged sale transaction between the driver and respondent 2.<\/p>\n

    Further, the Court perused the Certificate of Registration which revealed that the registration of the offending vehicle was transferred to respondent 2, thereby officiating him as the registered owner. The Court said that since there were no other documents on record, it was evident that respondent 2 was the owner of the offending vehicle.<\/p>\n

    The Court perused the testimonies of the witnesses and observed that the employer-employee relationship between the driver and respondent 2 could not be proved as the same had been utterly contradicted by the parties and no such document was placed on record to show that on the day of the accident, the driver was driving in the course of employment or under the direction of respondent 2.<\/p>\n

    The Court said that even though possession and control of the offending vehicle was with the driver, it does not mean that the registered owner was not liable for the same only because of non-possession and non-control. Thus, the Court held both the driver and respondent 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 18,59,466\/- to respondent 1 within four weeks.<\/p>\n

    Lastly, the Court held that the Tribunal had rightly assessed that the driver was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner because of which there arose no scope of contributory negligence on the part of respondent 1.<\/p>\n

    [Mohd Sabuddin v. Mohd Zakir, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7159<\/a>, Decided on 08-10-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

    Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

    For Appellant —<\/span> Advocate Manpreet Kaur<\/p>\n

    For Respondents —<\/span> Advocate S.D. Wadhwa, party-in-person<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

    1.<\/a> Section 281<\/a>\/125(b)<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n

    Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"penal<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    ‘While determining the issue of negligence, the courts are not subjected to apply the strict principles of evidence to motor vehicle accident cases as the standard of proof required in such cases is one of preponderance of probabilities<\/span>.’<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67517,"featured_media":314886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2543,53596,36848,19791,3065,74191,74192],"class_list":["post-333271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-justice-chandra-dhari-singh","tag-motor-accidents-claims-tribunal","tag-motor-vehicles-act","tag-negligence","tag-order-modified","tag-violation-of-provisions"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC modifies order by MACT and says mere violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to negligence | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi HC modifies order by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and says that mere violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to negligence\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Mere violation of Motor Vehicles Act provisions does not amount to negligence\u2019; Delhi HC modifies MACT\u2019s order\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi HC modifies order by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and says that mere violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to negligence\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-10-17T10:30:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-10-23T09:00:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Mere violation of Motor Vehicles Act provisions does not amount to negligence\u2019; Delhi HC modifies MACT\u2019s order\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC modifies order by MACT and says mere violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to negligence | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-10-17T10:30:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-10-23T09:00:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\"},\"description\":\"Delhi HC modifies order by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and says that mere violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to negligence\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Mere violation of Motor Vehicles Act provisions does not amount to negligence\u2019; Delhi HC modifies MACT\u2019s order\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC modifies order by MACT and says mere violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to negligence | SCC Times","description":"Delhi HC modifies order by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and says that mere violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to negligence","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Mere violation of Motor Vehicles Act provisions does not amount to negligence\u2019; Delhi HC modifies MACT\u2019s order","og_description":"Delhi HC modifies order by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and says that mere violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to negligence","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-10-17T10:30:31+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-10-23T09:00:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Mere violation of Motor Vehicles Act provisions does not amount to negligence\u2019; Delhi HC modifies MACT\u2019s order","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/","name":"Delhi HC modifies order by MACT and says mere violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to negligence | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-10-17T10:30:31+00:00","dateModified":"2024-10-23T09:00:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624"},"description":"Delhi HC modifies order by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and says that mere violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to negligence","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/17\/delhi-modifies-order-mact-mere-violation-provisions-motor-vehicles-act-not-negligence-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Mere violation of Motor Vehicles Act provisions does not amount to negligence\u2019; Delhi HC modifies MACT\u2019s order"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":272546,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/29\/tort-feasor-claim-compensation-madras-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":333271,"position":0},"title":"Duty of the claimants to prove negligence under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; Madras High Court set aside the award","author":"Editor","date":"August 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: In an appeal filed against the ruling of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, granting compensation to the three deceased persons travelling on a single motorcycle and one of the claimant being the rider of the only vehicle involved in the accident; R. Tharani, J. has held that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235511,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/08\/madras-hc-can-mact-deal-with-claims-policies-other-than-accident-claims-provisions-of-mv-act-contractual-statutory-liability-cannot-be-equated-hc-elaborates\/","url_meta":{"origin":333271,"position":1},"title":"Madras HC | Can MACT deal with claims & policies other than Accident Claims provisions of MV Act? Contractual & Statutory liability cannot be equated: HC elaborates","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court:\u00a0S.M. Subramaniam, J., while addressing a motor accident claim, observed that, Once, the policy is contractual in nature and the parties have signed the agreement, then such a contract cannot be construed or brought within the ambit of statutory liability. The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":249989,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/18\/learners-licence\/","url_meta":{"origin":333271,"position":2},"title":"Madras HC | In motor accident claims, can tribunal deduct certain percentage from compensation because rider had a learner’s license? Court answers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 18, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: The Division Bench of Pushpa Sathyanaryana and S. Kannammal, JJ., revised the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant in a motor accident claim and enhanced it from Rs 30,89,430 to Rs 83,35,000. Instant appeal was preferred challenging the decision and decree of the Motor Accident Claims\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":216855,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/15\/ph-hc-legal-representatives-of-deceased-can-maintain-application-under-s-166-of-motor-vehicles-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":333271,"position":3},"title":"P&H HC | Legal representatives of deceased can maintain application under S. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 15, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Kuldip Singh, J. modified the claim allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased was maintaining her family. An appeal was filed by the claimant against the award made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal. Facts of the case were that car accident\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":287584,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/23\/bombay-high-court-partly-allowed-appeal-by-granting-to-withdraw-excess-compensation-upheld-the-accident-due-to-human-negligence-bursting-of-tyre-not-an-act-of-god-legal-news-research-awareness-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":333271,"position":4},"title":"Bursting of the tyre is not an \u2018Act of God\u2019; Bombay High Court refuses to exonerate the insurance company from paying compensation","author":"Arunima","date":"March 23, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court observed that the dictionary meaning of \u201cact of god\u201d is \u201can instance of uncontrollable natural forces in operation\u201d I.e., a severe, unanticipated natural event for which no human is responsible.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":201884,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/17\/possession-of-two-driving-licence-where-one-found-fake-cannot-render-the-second-license-invalid-under-the-motor-vehicles-act-1988\/","url_meta":{"origin":333271,"position":5},"title":"Possession of two driving licence where one found fake cannot render the second license invalid under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988\u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 17, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: An appeal was allowed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Harinder Singh Sidhu, J., filed against an award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, where appellants were made jointly and severally liable to pay compensation instead of Insurance Company. The facts of the case are\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333271","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67517"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=333271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333271\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=333271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=333271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=333271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}