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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

ACT: Civil Procedure Code. 1908: Section 64 and Order 21 Rule 57Attachment order--Execution petition or suit in which attachment ordered dismissed--Restoration of such proceed- ings--Whether attachment revived--Alienation of attached property--Whether affected. -An order of restoration of a suit dismissed for default would certainly restore or revive the attachment for the period during which it was in subsistence, namely, prior to the dismissal of the suit or execution application. In the present case both transactions, sale by the judgment-debtor and subsequent sale by the purchaser to the respondents, were effected during the subsistence of the attachment and before the Title Execution Case was dismissed for default. The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in taking the view that by reason of the dismissal of the said Title Execution Case, the attachment came to an end and the order of restoration of the said case would not affect any alienations made before the restoration, although such alienations might have been made during the subsistence of the attachment. -2015 S.C.(1987) msklawreports

The appellant filed a petition for execution of the money decree obtained by her in High Court against the judgment-debtor and attachment was levied in execution on open land and a portion of the premises in question belong- ing to the judgment-debtor. Subsequently, the judgment- debtor sold a portion of the attached property. The purchas- er in turn, sold a portion thereof to the respondents. The aforesaid execution petition was dismissed for default but later on an application by the appellant, the said Execution Case was restored, and the said property was again attached, and a proclamation for sale of the said property was issued under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents' petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of C.P.C. for releasing the property purchased by the respondents from attachment was dismissed. The High Court allowed the appeal. In appeal to this Court, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that in vi...
Read more