Whether the sister can claim compensation under M.V.Act ? - Yes. Whether the Insurance company can be exonerated as difference in the type of licence held by the driver ? - No. - 2015 TELANGANA &A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS




In view of the above precedential jurisprudence, the Insurance
Company cannot be automatically exonerated merely because of the  
difference in the type of licence held by the driver.  the Insurance Company
shall establish that the owner has willfully committed breach of the terms of
the policy and further the defect in the driving licence is the fundamental
cause for the accident.  Inspite of establishing this fact, still the Tribunal
can 
direct the Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover from the 
owner.  In the instant case, the Insurance Company could not establish that
the owner willfully committed breach of the terms of the policy and non-
possession of transport driving licence was the fundamental cause for the
accident. It must be noted that driver was not altogether disqualified from
holding the licence. So in these circumstances, the Tribunal instead of
exempting the Insurance Company ought to have ordered pay and recover. 
Hence, such a direction is required in this appeal. This point is answered
accordingly.

 the claimant being
the sister of the deceased is not his dependant and hence does not deserve
compensation. It must be said that this argument does not hold water either
on facts or on law. On factual side, it is the case of claimant that she is the
own sister of the deceased and that the deceased had no wife and children
and he was a dumb person and similarly the claimant is also not having
husband and children and therefore, both of them were interdependent on
each other. This fact is not controverted by the respondent in the O.P. As
such, it is clear that the claimant is dependant as well as legal representative
of the deceased and hence she deserves compensation. Even the decision  
cited by the appellant in Manjuri Beras case (3 supra) reveals that the
liability under Section 140 of M.V. Act does not seize because of lack of
dependency. In that case, a claim petition was filed under Section 140 of
M.V. Act by the married daughter of the deceased. Thus it is clear that
dependency is not a sole factor for awarding compensation under M.V. Act.
In the instant case, the claimant besides being the legal representative of the
deceased, his dependant too.  - 2015 TELANGANA &A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS