User:Hanifahmed Mulia/sandbox

1. While deciding a claim petition, preferred under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), more often then not, Ld. Judges of the Tribunals are vexed with such questions that it becomes difficult for them to come to a certain conclusion, main reasons for such vexation are:-

a)Non availability of judgments on certain points, b)If judgments are available on some points, they run in different directions, c)Lack of reference book to decide, as to whether the insurance policy is 'Act Policy' (Statutory Policy) or 'Comprehensive Policy' (Package Policy).

2.By way of this Article, an attempt is made to help Judicial Officers to decide claim petitions easily, and more particularly, in accordance with the law. Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts have laid down principles/guidelines to decide claim petitions, which will be discussed herein-below.

3. Requirement for the police to forward to the Claims Tribunal “Accident Information Report” (AIR) which the Tribunal has to treat as an application for compensation:- 3.1The Bench comprising of Three Hon'ble Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd, reported in 2010 (2) GLR (SC) has given following directions to Police and Tribunals.

A)    Directions to the Police Authorities : The Director General of Police of each State is directed to instruct all police stations in his State to comply with the provisions of Sec. 158(6) of the Act. For this purpose, the following steps will have to be taken by the Station House Officers of the jurisdictional police stations : (i) Accident Information Report ('AIR', for short) in Form No. 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 shall be submitted by the police (Station House Officer) to the jurisdictional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, within 30 days of the registration of the F.I.R. In addition to the particulars required to be furnished in Form No.54, the police should also collect and furnish the following additional particulars in the AIR to the Tribunal : (i) The age of the victims at the time of accident; (ii) The income of the victim; (iii) The names and ages of the dependent family members. (ii) The AIR shall be accompanied by the attested copies of the F.I.R., site sketch/mahazar/photographs of the place of occurrence, driving licence of the driver, insurance policy (and if necessary, fitness certificate) of the vehicle and post mortem report (in case of death) or the injured or dependent family members of the deceased should also be furnished to the Tribunal. (iii) Simultaneously, a copy of the AIR with annexures thereto shall be furnished to the Insurance Company concerned to enable the insurer to process the claim. (iv)The police shall notify the first date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal to the victim (injured) or the family of the victim (in case of death) and the driver, owner and insurer. If so directed by the Tribunal, the police may secure their presence on the first date of hearing.

B) Directions to the Claims Tribunals : The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to instruct all Claims Tribunals in his State to register the reports of accidents received under Sec. 158(6) of the Act as applications for compensation under Sec. 166(4) of the Act and deal with them without waiting for the filing of claim applications by the injured or by the family of the deceased. The Registrar General shall ensure that necessary registers, forms and other support is extended to the Tribunal to give effect to Sec. 166(4) of the Act.

For complying with Sec. 166(4) of the Act, the jurisdictional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals shall initiate the following steps : (a) The Tribunal shall maintain an institution register for recording the AIRs. which are received from the Station House Officers of the police stations and register them as miscellaneous petitions. If any private claim petitions are directly filed with reference to an AIR, they should also be recorded in the register. (b) The Tribunal shall list the AIRs. as miscellaneous petitions. It shall fix a date for preliminary hearing so as to enable the police to notify such date to the victim (family of the victim in the event of death) and the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Once, the claimant(s) appear, the miscellaneous application shall be converted to claim petition. Where a claimant(s) file the claim petition even before the receipt of the AIR by the Tribunal, the AIR may be tagged to the claim petition. (c) The Tribunal shall enquire and satisfy itself that the AIR relates to a real accident and is not the result of any collusion and fabrication of an accident (by any "police officer-Advocate-doctor" nexus, which has come to light in several cases). (d) The Tribunal shall by a summary enquiry ascertain the dependent family members/legal heirs. The jurisdictional police shall also enquire and submit the names of the dependent legal heirs. (e) The Tribunal shall categorise the claim cases registered, into those where the insurer disputes liability and those where the insurer does not dispute the liability. (f) Wherever the insurer does not dispute the liability under the policy, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to determine the compensation amount by a summary enquiry or refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for settlement, so as to dispose of the claim petition itself, within a time-frame not exceeding six months from the date of registration of the claim petition. (g) The Insurance Companies shall be directed to deposit the admitted amount or the amount determined, with the Claims Tribunals within 30 days of determination. The Tribunals should ensure that the compensation amount is kept in a fixed deposit and disbursed as per the directions contained in Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176. (h) As the proceeding initiated in pursuance of Secs. 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act are different in nature from an application by the victims(s) under Sec. 166(1) of the Act, Sec. 170 will not apply. The insurers will therefore be entitled to assist the Tribunal (either independently or with the owners of the vehicles) to verify the correctness in regard to the accident, injuries, age, income and dependants of the deceased victim and in determining the quantum of compensation.

C) Direction with respect to investment:-  		In para No. 28 & 29 of Jai Prakash's case (supra) it has been held as 				under:- 	“28. To protect and preserve the compensation amount awarded to the families of the deceased victim special schemes may be considered by the Insurance Companies in consultation with Life Insurance Corporation of India, State Bank of India or any other Nationalised Banks. One proposal is for formulation of a scheme in consultation with the Nationalised Banks under which the compensation is kept in a fixed deposit for an appropriate period and interest is paid by the Bank monthly to the claimants without any need for the claimants having to approach either the Court or their Counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount of compensation is utilised only for the benefit of the injured claimants or in case of death, for the benefit of the dependent family”. 29. We extract below the particulars of a special scheme offered by a Nationalised Bank at the instance of the Delhi High Court : (i) The fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed till the period 			     prescribed by the Court. (ii) The interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly. (iii) The monthly interest shall be credited automatically in the savings account of the claimant. (iv) Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the F.D.R. (v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period. (vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant. (vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without the permission of the Court. (viii) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without the permission of the Court. (ix) The claimant can operate the Savings Bank account from the nearest branch of U.CO. Bank and on the request of the claimant, the Bank shall provide the said facility”.

4. How to decide a claim petition wherein Fatal Injuries were sustained by the deceased:-

4.1 In Sarla Verma v/s Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) = AIR 2009 SC 3104 guidelines for determination of multiplier, future prospects of the deceased, deduction towards personal and living expenditures are issued. The ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) was considered by the Three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari v/s Madan Mohan, reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) and it is held that ratio laid down in the case of Saral Verma (supra) should be followed by the all the Tribunals. The principles laid down in the case of Srala Veram and Reshma Kumari (supra) qua determination of multiplier, future prospects of the deceased, deduction towards personal and living expenditures are as under:- a) Choice of Multiplier:-

Age of the Deceased Multiplier Upto 15 years 15 15 to 20 years 18 21 to 25 years 18 26 to 30 years 17 31 to 35 years 16 36 to 40 years 15 41 to 45 years 14 46 to 50 years 13 51 to 55 years 11 56 to 60 years 9 61 to 65 years 7 Above 65 years 5

b) What should be the multiplier in the case of Fatal injury case, where deceased was unmarried son/daughter:-

There are difference of opinion as to what should be the multiplier in the case of fatal injury case, where deceased was unmarried son/daughter. In Shyam Singh, reported in 2011 (7) SCC 65 = 2011 ACJ 1990 (SC), it has been held that  Multiplier in the case of death of unmarried son/daughter, proper multiplier should be arrived at by assessing average age of parents of the deceased. But different views are taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of P. S. Somnathan v/s Dist. Insurance Officer, reported in 2011 ACJ 737 (SC), Amrit Bhanu Shali v/s NI  Com., reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 (SC), Saktidevi v/s  NI  Com, reported in 2010 (14) SCC 575 and Reshma Kumari v/s Madan Mohan, reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC). In the above referred cases it has been held that in the case of death of unmarried son/daughter, multiplier should be a applied on the basis of age of the deceased and not on the basis of average age of the parents of the deceased.

c) Future Prospect of Deceased:-

In para No.11 of the Srala Verama's (supra) judgment it is held as under:- “In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects. where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances”.

4.2From the above referred observations, it becomes clear that where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years (where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary, less tax'), addition should be 50% and if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years, addition should be only 30% and there should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary, without provision for annual increments etc., the Tribunal can usually take only the actual income at the time of death.

4.3It is also required to be born in mind that House Rent Allowance, Medical Allowance, Dearness Allowance, Dearness Pay, Employees Provident Fund, Government Insurance Scheme, General Provident Fund, C.C.A. etc should be treated as part and parcel of the income of the deceased, while calculating income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation. Reference may be made to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Sharma v/s Bachitar Singh, reported in 2011 ACJ 1441 (SC) also see Vimal Kanwar v/s Kishore Dan, reported in 2013 ACJ 1441.

4.4  Now, the question is, when a departure from the above referred guideline should be made? In this regards, reference is required to be made to the ratio laid down in the case of K. R. Madhusudhan v/s Administrative Officer, reported in AIR 2011 SC 979. In the said case deceased was aged 53 years and was working as Senior Assistant in Karnataka Electricity Board. As per Board Agreement, after completion of five years, pay revision was compulsory and evidence was produced by the claimants showing that if deceased would have been alive he would have reached gross salary of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. Hence, even though deceased was above 50 years of age, it is held that claimants are entitled to compensation calculated on the basis of such increased income.

d) Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenditures:-

4.5 In Para No.14 of Sarla Veram's case (supra) it is held as under:- “Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six”. 4.6  In Para No.14 of Sarla Veram's case (supra) it is held as under:- “Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically”.

4.7Meaning thereby, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is less than 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. And in the cases where deceased was unmarried son/daughter, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-half. 4.7.1. It has been further held in Para No.15 of Sarla Verma's case (supra) that:- “Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third”.

4.8  Plain reading of above referred observations, makes it clear that, unless, it is proved that father of the deceased was not having independent income, father of the deceased cannot be treated as dependant. Same analogy applies in the cases of where claim petition is preferred by the sibling/s of deceased who was/were unmarried brother/sister of such deceased. But if, it is proved that father of the deceased was not having independent income, father of the deceased can be treated as dependant. In the cases where claim petition is preferred by the mother, sibling/s who were solely dependant on the income of the of deceased, in such cases, one-third (1/3rd) may be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased.

4.9  In Srala Veram (supra) it has been held in par 26 that:- “In addition, the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of 'loss of estate' and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The widow will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium'. 4.10 But a bench of Three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh v/s Rajbir Singh, reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 has held that claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of loss of care and guidance for minor children, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and the widow will be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- as loss of consortium.

5. How to decide a claim petition wherein claimant has sustained Injuries:- 5.1 If the claim petition is preferred u/s 166 of the Act, in injury cases, choice of multiplier remains the same, as in the case of fatal injuries cases. Deductions towards personal and living expenditures are not made in injuries case. To determine the future loss of income, ratio laid down in the case of Raj Kumar v/s Ajay Kumar, reported in 2012 ACJ 1  =  2011 (1) SCC 343 is required to be followed. In paragraph 6 of the said decision, the various elements of compensation are enumerated as under:- "Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi)Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)".

5.2 Compensation in the case, where an injured victim is Government Servant/Salaried person, whose salary has increased after the accident and has not sustained any financial loss:- 5.2.1The concept of awarding compensation is :- that no amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury" so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.

5.2.2Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v/s Ajay Kumar, reported in 2011 ACJ 1 = 2011 (1) SCC 343, has held in para No.10 as under:- “… On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand...”

5.2.3 Reference is also required to be made to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gurdipsinh s/o Bisensingh Sadhu vs. Chauhan Bhupendrakumar Udesing, reported in 1980 GLR 221. In the said judgment, it is held that the Court can make rough estimate about loss of earning capacity in the light of the facts and circumstances and the available data of medical evidence on record. In the said case, Hon'ble High Court had estimated the loss of earning capacity at 25% of actual income and claimant was awarded Rs.45,000, though there was no immediate reduction in his salary as a Technical Assistant in O.N.G.C. Relying upon the said decision, Hon'ble Division bench of Gujarat High Court has held in the case of Mohanbhai Gemabhai vs. Balubhai Savjibhai, reported in 1993(1) GLR 249 (para 20) that:- “No doubt, it is imperative for the Tribunal to consider the facts and circumstances, and the medical evidence, showing the extent of physical impairment. If no precise and direct evidence showing the percentage or extent of the disablement is spelt out, the Tribunal can make rough and reasonable estimate of loss of earning capacity so as to determine the just amount of compensation under the head of 'prospective economic loss'.”

5.2.4Even the observations of House of Lords, reported in 1912 AC 496 are very relevant and same can be taken into consideration. Reference required to be made to the ratio laid down in 2013 ACJ 79 – para 20.

5.2.5From the above referred ratios of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it becomes clear that Tribunal can grant compensation to those injured persons who have not suffered any financial loss or whose salary income have actually increased after the date of accident and such compensation should not be under the head of 'loss of Future Earnings' but under the head of 'Loss off Amenities' Such claimants are entitled for such amount of compensation, calculated on the basis of 1/4th of the net salary income, which they were getting at the time of accident.

5.3 Determination of permanent Partial Disablement of the claimant:-

5.3.1.In the cases where injured had sustained more that one fracture injuries, it may appear to Tribunal that disability certificate issued by the Doctor depicts the higher value of disability than the injured claimant has actually sustained. In such situation, Ld. Judge of the Tribunal finds it difficult to arrive at the exact amount of disability sustained by the injured claimant. Normally, Doctors issue disability certificate on the basis of formula invented by Dr. Henry H. Kessler in his book titled as 'Disability – Determination & Evaluation'. For determination of disability in such cases, Doctors apply formula evolved by Dr. Henry H. Kessler. Said Formula reads as under:-

A+{ [B (100-A)] / 100} 5.3.2.In the said formula, 'A' stands for higher value of partial disablement, whereas 'B' stands for lower value of partial disablement. Doctors normally, take disadvantage of the comments given on page No.49 of the above referred book. Careful reading of the said comments, leads to the conclusion that when injured victim/claimant has sustained injuries, which resulted into two or more fractures on two different limbs of the body, then in such situation disablement in relation to whole body may be assessed as per the above referred formula. But above referred formula does not apply in the cases where claimant has sustained two or more fractures on the same limb i.e one fracture on right hand and second on left hand or one fracture on right lag and second on the left leg. It is also mentioned in the said book that lower part of the body i.e. legs or upper part of body i.e. two hands are considered as one limb of the body (lower limb or upper limb) and when victim/claimant has sustained fractures on the one particular limb then in such case, disablement in relation to whole may be assessed as one half of the permanent partial disablement assessed by the doctor. Say for an example, claimant has sustained one fracture injury on right leg and doctor has assessed disability in relation to right lower limb as 27% and second fracture injury on left leg and doctor has assessed disability in relation to left lower limb as 7% and if, we apply simple principle in the facts of the above referred example, the disablement in relation to whole body, comes to 17%. (27% in relation to right lower limb plus permanent partial impairment of 7% in relation to left lower limb, divided by two [27% + 7% ] / 2 ). But, if we apply the above referred formula, disablement in relation to whole body comes to 32.11%. { 27 + [7 (100 – 27) / 100] }. From the above referred discussion, it becomes clear that when victim/claimant has sustained more than one fractures on one limb and when victim/claimant has sustained more than one fractures on two limbs, assessment of disablement in relation to whole body is required to be assessed by applying different formulas. Book written by Dr. Henry H. Kessler, namely, 'Disability – Determination & Evaluation' is considered to be the authority as far as calculation of permanent partial disablement is concerned. However, it is to be noted that Dr. Henry H. Kessler has also mentioned in his book that there is always variation of plus/minus 5%, in the permanent partial disablement assessed by the doctor. Therefore, while deciding permanent partial impairment of the injured claimant, above referred facts are required to be remembered.

5.3.3Reference may also be made to 'Manual For Doctors To Evaluate Permanent Physical Impairment', which is based on expert group meeting on disability evaluation and national seminar on disability evaluation and dissemination, G.G.H.S.- W.H.O.- A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi -1981. Reference may also be made to 'Disability Guidelines issued by Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, dated 1st June 2001. Guidelines issued in the above referred reports are as under:-

5.3.3.1. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment in Upper Limbs:- 1. The estimation of permanent impairment depends upon the measurement of functional impairment, and is not expression of a personal opinion. 2. The estimation and measurement must be made when the clinical condition is fixed and unchangeable. 3. The upper extremity is divided into two component parts the arm component and the hand component. 4. Measurement of the loss of function of arm component consists in measuring the loss of motion, muscle strength an co-ordinated activities. 5. Measurement of the loss of function of hand component consists in determining the Prehension, Sensation & Strength. For estimation of Prehension : Opposition, lateral pinch, Cylindrical grasp, spherical grasp and hook grasp have to be assessed as shown in the column of “prehension component in the proforma. 6. The impairment of the entire extremity depends on the combination of the functional impairment of both components.

ARM COMPONENT:- Total value of arm component is 90%. Principles of Evaluation of range of motion of joints 1. The value for maximum R.O.M. in the arm component is 90%. 2. Each of the three joints of the arm is weighted equally (30%). Example A. fracture of the right shoulder joint may affect range of motion so that active adduction is 90degree. The left shoulder exhibits a range of active abduction of 180degree. Hence there is loss of 50% of abduction movement of the right shoulder. The percentage loss of arm component in the shoulder is 50 x 0.03 or 15% loss of motion for the arm component. If more than one joint is involved, same method is applied, and the losses in each of the affected joints are added. Say for example:- Loss of abduction of the shoulder = 60% Loss of extension of the wrist = 40% Then, loss of range of motion for the arm = (60 x 0.30) + (40 x 0.30) = 30%

Principles of Evaluation of strength of muscles:- 1. Strength of muscles can be tested by manual testing like 0-5 grading. 2. Manual muscle gradings can be given percentages like 3. – 100% 4. – 80% 5. – 60% 6. – 40% 7. – 20% 8. – 0% 9. The mean percentage of muscle strength loss is multiplied by 0.30. If there has been a loss of muscle strength of more than one joint, the values are added as has been described for loss of range of motion.

Principles of Evaluation of co-ordinated activities:- 1. The total value for co-ordinated activities is 90%. 2. Ten different co-ordinated activities are to be tested as given in the Proforma. 3. Each activity has a value of 9%.

Combining values for the Arm Component:- 1. The value of loss of function of arm component is obtained by combining the values of range of movement, muscle strength & co-ordinated activities, using the combining formula A+ b(90-a)/90 Where 'a' = higher value & 'b' = lower value Example Let us assume that an individual with a fracture of the right shoulder joint has in addition to 16.5% loss of motion of his arm, 8.3% loss of strength of muscles, and 5% loss of co-ordination. We combine these values as : Range of motion : 16.5%		16.5 +8.3(90-16.5)/90 =23.3 % Strength of Muscles : 8.3% Co-ordination : 5%			23.3 + 5(90-23.3)/90 =27.0% So total value of arm component = 27.0%

HAND COMPONENT:- Total value of hand component is 90%. The functional impairment of hand is expressed as loss of prehension, loss of sensation, loss of strength. Principles of Evaluation of Prehension:- Total value of Prehension is 30%. It includes : (A) Opposition (8%). Tested against Index finger (2%). Middle finger (2%) Ring finger (2%) & Little finger (2%) (B) Lateral Pinch (5%). Tested by asking the patient to hold a key. (C) Cylindrical Grasp (6%). Tested for (D) Large object of 4 inch size (3%) (E) Small object of 1 inch size (3%) (F) Spherical Grasp (6%). Tested for (G) Large object 4 inch size (3%) (H) Small object 1 inch size (3%) (I) Hook Grasp (5%). Tested by asking the patient to lift a bag.

Principles of Evaluation of Sensations:- Total value of sensation is 30%. It includes : 1. Grip Strength (20%) 2. Pinch Strength (10%) 3. Strength will be tested with hand dynamo-meter or by clinical method (Grip Method). 10% additional weightage to be given to the following factors : 1. Infection 2. Deformity 3. Malaignment 4. Contractures 5. Cosmetic appearance 6. Abnormal Mobility 7. Dominant Extremity (4%)

Combining values of the hand component:- The final value of loss of function of hand component is obtained by summing up values of loss of prehension, sensation and strength.

Combining Values for the Extremity:- Values of impairment of arm component and impairment of hand component are combined by using the combining formula. Example Impairment of the arm = 27% 			64 +27(90-64)/90=71.8% Impairment of the hand = 64%

5.3.3.2. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment in Lower Limbs:- The lower extremity is divided into two components: Mobility component and Stability component.

MOBILITY COMPONENT:- Total value of mobility component is 90%. It includes range of movement and muscle strength. Principles of Evaluation of Range of Movement:- 1The value of maximum range of movement in the mobility component is 90%. 2. Each of the three joints i.e. hip, knee, foot-ankle component, is weighted equally – 0.30. Example A Fracture of the right hip joint may affect range of motion so that active abduction is 27degree. The lift hip exhibits a range of active abduction of 54degree. Hence, there is loss of 50% of abduction movement of the right hip. The percentage loss of mobility component in the hip is 50, 0.30 or 15% loss of motion for the mobility component.

If more than one joint is involved, same method is applied and the losses in each of the affected joints are added. Example Loss of abduction of the hip = 60% Loss of extension f the knee = 40% Loss of range of motion for the mobility component = (60 x 0.30) + (40 x 0.03) = 30%.

Principles of Evaluation of Muscle Strength:- 1. The value for maximum muscle strength in the leg is 90%. 2. Strength of muscles can be tested by manual testing like 0-5 grading. 3. Manual muscle gradings can be given percentages like Grade 0 = 100% Grade 1= 80% Grade 2= 60% Grade 3= 40% Grade 4= 20% Grade 5= 0% 4. Mean percentage of muscle strength loss is multiplied by 0.30. 5. If there has been a loss of muscle strength of more than one joint, the values are added as has been described for loss of range of motion.

Combining Values for the Mobility Component:- Let us assume that the individual with a fracture of the right hip joint has in addition to 16% loss of motion 8% loss of strength of muscles. Combing Values:- Motion 16%, Strength 8% = 16 +8(90-16)/90 =22.6% Where 'a' = higher value, 'b' = lower value.

STABILITY COMPONENT:- 1. Total value of stability component is 90% 2. It is tested by 2 methods 3. Based on scale method. 4. Based on clinical method Three different readings (in kilograms) are taken measuring the total body weight (W), scale ‘A’ reading and scale ‘B’ reading. The final value is obtained by the formula : Difference in body weight divided by Total body weight, multiplied by 90. In the clinical method of evaluation nine different activities are to be tested as given in the proforma. Each activity has a value of ten percent (10%).

5.3.3.4. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment of Trunk (Spine):- The local effects of lesions of spine can be divided into traumatic and non-traumatic lesions.

TRAUMATIC LESIONS Cervical Spine Fracture Percent Whole body Permanent Physical Impairment and Loss of Physical Function to Whole Body.

A. Vertebral compression 25%, one or two vertebral adjacent bodies, no fragmentation, no involvement of posterior elements, no nerve root involvement, moderate neck rigidity and persistent soreness. B. Posterior elements with X-ray evidence of moderate partial dislocation. (a) No nerve root involvement, healed- 15 (b) With persistent pain, with mild motor and sensory Manifestations- 25 (c) With fusion, healed no permanent motor or sensory changes- 25 C. Severe dislocation, fair to good reduction with surgical fusion (a) No residual motor or sensory changes- 25 (b) Poor reduction with fusion, persistent radicular pain, motor involvement, only slight weakness and numbness -35 (c) Same as (b) with partial paralysis, determine additional rating for loss of use of extremities and sphincters. Cervical Intervertebral Disc:- 1. Operative, successful removal of disc, with relief of acute pain, no fusion, no neurological residual- 10 2. Same as (1) with neurological manifestations, persistent pain, numbness, weakness in fingers- 20

Thoracic and Dorsolumbar Spine Fracture:- Percent Whole body Permanent Physical Impairment and Loss of Physical Function to Whole Body

A. Compression 25%, involving one or two vertebral bodies, mild, no fragmentation, healed no neurological manifestations.-10 B. Compression 50%, with involvement posterior elements, healed, no neurological manifestations, persistent pain, fusion indicated.- 20 C. Same as (B) with fusion, pain only on heavy use of back. -20 D. Total paraplegia. -100 E. Posterior elements, partial paralysis with or without fusion, should be rated for loss of use of extremities and sphincters.

Low Lumbar:- 1. Fracture 2. Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral bodies, little or fragmentation, no definite pattern or neurological changes.-15 3. Compression with fragmentation posterior elements, persistent pain, weakness and stiffness, healed, no fusion, no lifting over 25 pounds - 40 4. Same as (B), healed with fusion, mild pain -20 5. Same as (B), nerve root involvement to lower extermities, determine additional rating for loss of industrial function to extremities 6. Same as (c), with fragmentation of posterior elements, with persistent pain after fusion, no neurologic findings - 30 7. Same as (c), with nerve root involvement to lower extremities, rate with functional loss to extremities 8. Total paraplegia - 100 9. Posterior elements, partial paralysis with or with-out fusion, should be rated for loss of use of extremities and sphincters. @. Neurogenic Low Back Pain – Disc Injury A. Periodic acute episodes with acute pain and persistent body list, tests for sciatic pain positive, temporary recovery 5 to 8 weeks - 50 B. Surgical excision of disc, no fusion, good results, no persistent sciatic pain - 10 C. Surgical excision of disc, no fusion, moderate persistent pain and stiffness aggravated by heavy lifting with necessary modification of activities - 20 D. Surgical excision of disc with fusion, activities of lifting moderately modified - 15 E. Surgical excision of disc with fusion, persistent pain and stiffness aggravated by heavy lifting, necessitating modification of all activities requiring heavy lifting - 25

NON-TRAUMATIC LESIONS:- Scoliosis The whole Spine has been given rating of 100% and region wise the following percentages are given: Dorsal Spine - 50% Lumbar Spine – 30% Cervical Spine – 20%

Kobb’s method for measurement of angle of curve in standing position is to be used. The curves have been divided into three sub groups :

Particulars Cervical Spine Thoracic spine Lumber Spine 30degree (Mild) 2.00% 5.00% 6.00% 30-60degree (Moderate) 3.00% 15.00% 12.00% Above 60degree (Severe) 5.00% 25.00% 33.00%

In the curves ranging above 60 0, cardio-pulmonary complications are to be graded separately. The junctional curves are to be given that rating depending upon level of apex of curve. For example, if apex of dorso-lumbar curve falls in the dorsal spine the curve can be taken as a dorsal curve. When the scoliosis is adequately compensated, 5% reduction is to be given from final rating (for all assessment primary curves are considered for rating).

Kyphosis The same total rating (100%) as that suggested for scoliosis is to be given for kyphosis. Region-wise percentages of physical impairment are: Dorsal Spine – 50% Cervical Spine – 30% Lumbar Spine – 20%

For dorsal spine the following further gradings are : Less than 20degree – 10% 21degree – 40degree – 15% 41degree – 60degree – 20% Above 60degree – 25%

For kyphosis of lumbar and cervical spine 5% and 7% respectively have been allocated. Paralysis of Flexors & Extensors of Dorsal and Lumbar Spine:- The motor power of these muscles to be grouped as follows : Normal		- Weak 		5% Paralysed 	10% Paralysis of Muscles of Cervical Spine:- Particulars Normal Weak Paralysed Flexors 0 5.00% 10.00% Extensors 0 5.00% 10.00% Rotation 0 5.00% 10.00% Side Bending 0 5.00% 10.00%

Miscellaneous:- Those conditions of the spine which cause stiffness and part etc., are rated as follows : A. Subjective symptoms of pain, No involuntary muscle spasm, Not substantiated by demonstrable structural pathology. 0 B. Pain, Persistent muscle spasm and stiffness of spine, substantiated by demonstrable and radiological changes. 10% C. Same as B, with moderate radiological changes. 15% D. Same as B, with severe radiological changes involving any one of the region of spine (cervical, dorsal or lumbar)	20% E. Same as D, involving whole spine		30%

In Kypho-scoliosis, both curves to be assessed separately and then percentage of disability to be summed. 5.3.3.5. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment in Amputees:- Basic Guidelines:- 1. In case of multiple amputees, if the total sum of percentage permanent physical impairment is above 100%, it should be taken as 100%. 2. Amputation at any level with uncorrectable inability to wear and use prosthesis, should be given 100% permanent physical impairment. 3. In case of amputation in more than one limb percentage of each limb is counted and another 10% will be added, but when only toes or fingers are involved only another 5% will be added. 4. Any complication in form of stiffness, neuroma, infection etc. has to be given a total of 10% additional weightage. 5. Dominant upper limb has been given 4% extra percentage.

Upper Limb Amputation:-

Sr. No Particulars of Amputation Permanent Partial Impairment, in % 1 Fore-quarter 100 2 Shoulder Disarticulation 90 3 Above Elbow upto upper 1/3 of arm 85 4 Above Elbow upto lower 1/3 of arm 80 5 Elbow Disarticulation 75 6 Below Elbow upto upper 1/3 of forearm 70 7 Below Elbow upto lower 1/3 of forearm 65 8 Wrist Disarticulation 60 9 Hand through carpal bones 55 10 Thumb through C.M. or through 1st M.C. Joint 30 11 Thumb Disarticulation through metacarpophalangeal joint or through proximal phalanx 25 12 Thumb Disarticulation through inter  phalangeal joint or through distal phalanx 15

Amputation of Finger:- Particulars Index Finger Index Finger Middle Finger Ring Finger Little Finger

Amputation through proximal phalanx or disarticulation through MP joint 15.00% 15.00% 5.00% 3.00% 2.00%

Amputation through middle phalanx or disarticulation through PIP joint 10.00% 10.00% 4.00% 2.00% 1.00%

Amputation through distal phalanx or disarticulation through DIP joint 5.00% 5.00% 2.00% 1.00% 1.00%

Lower Limb Amputations:- 1. Hind quarter 100% 2. Hip disarticulation 90% 3. Above knee upto upper 1/3 of thigh 85% 4. Above knee upto lower 1/3 of thigh 80% 5. Through keen 75% 6. B.K. upto 8 cm 70% 7. B.K. upto lower 1/3 of leg 60% 8. Through ankle 55% 9. Syme's 50% 10. Upto mid-foot 40% 11. Upto fore-foot 30% 12. All toes 20% 13. Loss of first toe 10% 14. Loss of second toe 5% 15. Loss of third toe 4% 16. Loss of fourth toe 3% 17. Loss of fifth toe 2%

5.4 What should be the amount of compassion in the cases where injured lost one of the limb (amputation):- 5.4.1.Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govind Yadav v/s N.I.A.Com., reported in 2012 (1) TAC 1 (SC) = 2012 ACJ 28 (SC) has held that as the cost of living and cost of artificial limb (prosthetic) has substantially increased and, therefore, Rs.2,00,000/- to be awarded under the said head. Rs.1,50,000/-each to be awarded under the heads of pain, shock & sufferings and special diet, attendance & transportation and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, respectively. And if injured is unmarried and his/her prospects for marriage have considerably reduced, Rs.1,00,000/- may be awarded.

5.5 Whether Dependants of the injured claimant who died his natural death during the pendency of the claim petition are entitled to get any amount of compensation:-

5.5.1. Maxim “Actio Personalis Moritur-cum-Persona” is applicable in such cases. Even provisions of Section 306 (along with Illustrations) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 would apply. In the cases of Pravabati Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Gautam Das & Ors., reported in 2006 (Suppl) 1 GLT 15, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Melepurath Sankunni Ezuthassan v/s Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, reported in 1986 (1) SCC 118, and the case of M. Veerappa v/s Evelyn Sequeria & Ors., reported in 1988 (1) SCC 556, has held in paragraph 8 of the judgment thus:- “the right to sue will not survive in favour of his representatives, for, in such an appeal, what the legal representatives of such a claimant would be doing is to ask for compensation and the right to ask for compensation to be awarded does not survive if the claimant dies before the claim for compensation is awarded or decreed in his favour, the cause of death not being the injuries sustained by the deceased claimant”. 5.5.2.From the above referred ratio it becomes clear that if the claimant dies before the claim for compensation is awarded or decreed in his favour is passed, claim petition at the behest of the legal representative of the such injured claimant is not maintainable.

6.How to determine monthly income of the deceased or injured when no document in support thereof is not produced:- 6.1In the case of Govind Yadav (supra), para No.17 it has been held that when there is no proof of income, income of the deceased or injured claimant shall be decided by taking into consideration prevalence minimum wages. 6.2Several State Government have issued notifications of the relating to Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as '1948 Act'). Details of such notifications are under:- 6.2.1.Governments of National Territory of Delhi has revised minimum rates of wages applicable to all Scheduled Employees covered under the 1948 Act, vide Notification dated 12.09.2008, effective from 01.08.2008. Categories Rates in Rupees Dearness Allowance Rates per month Rates per Day Un-Skilled 3633 50 3683 142 Semi Skilled 3799 50 3849 148 Skilled 4057 50 4107 158

6.2.2.Rates applicable to Clerical and Non-Technical Supervisory Staff:- Categories Rates in Rupees Dearness Allowance Rates per month Rates per Day Non-matriculates 3826 50 3876 149 Matriculates but not graduates 4081 50 4131 159 Graduates and above 4393 50 4443 171

6.2.3.Government of National Territory of Delhi has revised minimum rates of wages applicable to all Scheduled Employees covered under the 1948 Act, vide Notification dated 26.07.2011, effective from 01.04.2011.

Occupation Wages per month in Rupees Wages per day in Rupees Un-Skilled:- Peon, Watchman, Sweeper, Waterman, Cleaner etc. 6422 247 Semi-Skilled:- Bus conductor, Asst. Electrician, Asst. Plumber, Asst. Carpenter etc. 7098 273 Skilled:- Liberian, Lab Assistant, Driver, Physical Instructor, Electrician, Plumber, Carpenter etc. 7826 301 Non-matriculates 7098 273 Matriculates but not graduates 7826 301 Graduates and above 8502 327

6.2.4.Government of Gujarat has fixed the following rates (in Rupees) as minimum Wages, w.e.f. 01.04.2013. Workers/Employees Category of Workers Basis Rates per Day D.A. per day Total per day Agriculture - 100 No Provision 100 Other Schedule Employees Un-Skilled 130-135 70 200-205 Other Schedule Employees Semi-Skilled 135-140 70 205-210 Other Schedule Employees Skilled 140-150 70 210-220

6.2.5. Data prior to 2008 is not available but it may be obtained from 			the office of Labour Commissioner. 7. How to determine income of the deceased or injured claimant when there is documentary evidence on record to show that  the deceased or injured claimant was earning in foreign currency and not in Indian Rupee:-

7.1Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s S.Malarvizhi, decided on 6 June, 2013 has held that when the deceased or injured claimant was getting salary in foreign currency, then in such situation such foreign salary/income should be converted into Indian Rupee, at the rates applicable at the time of accident and deduction of higher percentage of 60% of the income and low multiplier should be applied.

7.2Reference may also be made to ratio laid down in the case of In the case of United India Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Patricia Jean Mahajan, reported in 2002 (6) SCC 281 = 2002 ACJ 1481= 2002 (4) Supreme 518. Said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arose out of a claim made on behalf of the Doctor of Indian origin who became the American citizen and was killed in a road accident when he visited India. The claim for compensation was based upon the income in the foreign country and while considering the said case, among other things, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the total amount of compensation would work out to Rs.16.12 crores with interest and looking to the Indian Economy, fiscal and financial situation, the amount is certainly a fabulous amount though in the background of American conditions it may not be so. It was further held that when there is so much disparity in the economic conditions and affluence of two places viz. place to which the victim belong and the place at which the compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair compensation. Looking by the Indian standards they may not be much too overcompensated and similarly not very much under compensated as well, in the background of the country where most of the dependent beneficiaries reside.

8. How to decide a claim petition where defence of Invalid, Learners Licence & Fake Driving Licence and Defense of Qualification/Badge is taken:- 8.1Reference is required to be made to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Com. Ltd. V/s Swaran Singh, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531, in Para No.105 it has been held as under:- 105:- The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows : (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party 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) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have 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 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, 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 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 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 insured under Section 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 fulfil 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 under Section 165 read with Section 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. 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 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 Section 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 Sections 149(2) read with sub-section (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 under Section 174 of the Act as arrears as land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 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 sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against 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”.

8.2  Bare reading of above referred observations makes it clear that 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 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. The insurance companies are, 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. 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 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 insured under Section 149(2) of the Act. 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.

8.3  It is also held in Para 105 (ix) and (x) that Tribunal is empowered to pass and order to “Pay and Recover” against the insurer. 8.4 As far as, defence of insurer qua the qualification/badge of the licence is concern, same can be decided by relying upon para Nos.42, 43 & 84 of the Swaran Singh's case. Paras 42, 43 & 84 reads as under:- “42. If a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As for example when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and jeep separately. 43. Furthermore, the insurance company with a view to avoid its liabilities is not only required to show that the conditions laid down under Section 149(2)(a) or (b) are satisfied but is further required to establish that there has been a breach on the part of the insured. By reason of the provisions contained in the 1988 Act, a more extensive remedy has been conferred upon those who have obtained judgment against the user of a vehicle and after a certificate of insurance is delivered in terms of Section 147(3) a third party has obtained a judgment against any person insured by the policy in respect of a liability required to be covered by Section 145, the same must be satisfied by the insurer, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or to cancel the policy or may in fact have done so. The same obligation applies in respect of a judgment against a person not insured by the policy in respect of such a liability, but who would have been covered if the policy had covered the liability of all persons, except that in respect of liability for death or bodily injury. 84.Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) Motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are 'goods carriage', 'heavy-goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor-vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor-vehicle', 'maxi-cab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor-vehicle', 'motor-cab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semi-trailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer', and 'transport vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for 'motorcycle without gear', for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for 'light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a 'maxi-cab', 'motor-cab' or 'omnibus' for which he has no licence.In each case on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence”.

8.4 Meaning thereby, even if driver of offending vehicle was not qualified to ply the offending vehicle or was not having the required badge to ply such vehicle then also insurer is liable to pay amount of compensation. Before passing any order, Tribunal has to decide whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.

8.5 Reference is also required to be made to the recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Iyyapan v/s United India Insurance Com. Ltd., dated 01.07.2013. Wherein, after referring several ratios of Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held in Para No.19 that:-

“In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside”.

8.6 Even in the case of  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2266, it has been held that when driver of offending vehicle was holder of licence of three wheeler i.e. auto rickshaw delivery van and his licence was not meant for driving 'transport vehicle' but for goods carrying public carrier, in such case Insurer is not liable but directed the insurer to first pay entire amount of compensation with a further direction to recover the same from the insured (these directions were issued under Article 142 of Constitution of India).

9. In which circumstances, Insurer is liable to pay compensation when injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle:-

9.1 It is the duty of the insurer to prove that injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle and, therefore, it is not liable to pay amount of compensation, unless, same has been prove, insurer is liable to pay amount of compensation.

9.2 To decide whether, injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle or not, Panchnama of scene of accident plays very vital role. If, after reading Panchnama, it appears that there were goods loaded in the vehicle or were found lying at the sight of accident then it can be presumed that vehicle was used for carrying goods. However, there are some points, which are required to be considered before fastening liability on insurer, which are:-

9.2.1 Whether injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the cabin of the goods vehicle or not. If, injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the cabin of the goods, insurer is liable otherwise not. Reference be made to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Cholleti Bharatamma, reported in AIR 2008 SC 484.

9.2.2 Whether the insurer is liable in a case where the injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as the labourer of the owner or the hirer:-

9.2.2.1.If it is proved that injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as the labourer of the owner of the goods then insurer is liable to pay amount of compensation, provided additional premium of labourer/collie is paid by the owner but insurer is not liable in the such cases where injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as the labourer of the hirer. Reference be made to the ratio laid down in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd, reported in AIR 2013 SCW 301, wherein it is held that:- “the Act policy does not cover all kinds of employees. Thus, on a contextual reading of the provision, schematic analysis of the Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 it is quite limpid that the statutory policy only covers the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage. It does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorized agent in place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of goods, cannot be covered by the statutory policy”.

9.3 Whether insurer is liable in the case where injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as the owner or representative of the goods:- 9.3.1.If it is proved that the injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as the owner or representative of the goods, insurer is liable to pay amount of compensation otherwise not. Reference be made to ratio laid own in the case of New India Insurance Company v/s Darshana Devi, reported in AIR 2008 (Supp) SC 1639.

9.4 Whether injured claimant or deceased was travelling in Tractor-/trolley is entitled to get amount of compensation:-

9.4.1Normally, Tractor-trailer/trolley is used for agricultural purpose and if it found that same was used for agricultural purpose and same is covered by the 'Farmer Comprehensive Policy' or the 'Farmer Package Policy', in such situation, insurer is liable to pay compensation. If the above referred two conditions are not fulfilled, insurer can not be held responsible to pay amount of compensation.

9.4.2It is also to be noted that in the Annexure of Indian Motor Tariff, list of Miscellaneous and Special types of vehicles is given. As per the said list tractors can be used for Agricultural and if Trolley is attached to such Tractor, same may be used for carrying goods. As per the said list there is one another kind of Tractor, which is 'Traction Engine Tractor'. If is found that tractor is not used for the purpose of agricultural work and if it used for carrying goods, such tractor-trolley must be insured for such purpose and if is not insured as such, insurer is not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

9.5It to be noted that when insurance policy contains 'Avoidance Clause', then in such situation, insurer is liable to pay compensation under the principle of 'Pay and Recover'. Reference may be made to the ratio laid down in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal, Devi, reported in 2010 ACJ 2878 and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shantaben Vankar v/s Yakubbhai Patel, reported in 2012 ACJ 2715.

9.6. However, it is to be noted that the issue with respect to passing an order of 'Pay and Recover' is pending for consideration before the Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court. Reference be made to judgment delivered in the case of National Insurance com. Ltd. v/s Parvathneni, reprted in 2009 (3) GLH 377 (SC).

10. Liability of insurer to pay compensation in the cases where injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the private car as occupants or travelling on two wheeler as pillion rider:- 10.1. In the recent decision, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of  National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan, reported in AIR 2013 SC 473 has held in para No.21 that:- “comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an "Act Policy" stands on a different footing from a "Comprehensive/Package Policy". As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a "Comprehensive/Package Policy" covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the "Act Policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a "Comprehensive/Package Policy", the liability would be covered”.

10.1.1. In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra), occupant of private car or the pillion rider of two wheeler is entitled to recover amount of compensation from insurer, provided the offending vehicle is covered with the 'Comprehensive/ Package Policy'. Reference may also be made to ratio laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Surendra Nath Loomba, reported in AIR 2013 SC 483. 11. How to decide a claim petition preferred under section 163-A of the Act:- 11.1.As per the ratio laid down in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385 = AIR 2004 SC 2107, Hon'ble Full Bench of Apex Court has held that claim petition preferred u/s 163-A is under 'No Fault Liability'. Whereas, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sinitha, reported in AIR 2012 SC 797, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that claim petition preferred u/s 163-A is under 'Fault Liability'.

11.2.It does not become clear from the facts of the of Deepal Girishbhai Soni's (supra) case as to whether, more than one vehicles were involved in the said accident or not but from the reading of the Sinitha's (supra) case, it becomes clear that there was only one vehicle involved and question which was required to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as to whether, insurer has succeeded in proving that claimant himself was negligent in causing the accident or not. 11.3.From the reading of both the above referred ratios, it appears that there are conflicting views and, therefore, each claim petition may be decided on the basis of it's facts. That is to say, if only one vehicle is involved, point of negligence must be decided.

11.4.It is to be noted that in a claim petition, preferred u/s 163A of the Act, income of the injured claimant or the deceased should not be more that Rs.40,000/- per annum. If, the income of the injured claimant or the deceased is more that Rs.40,000/- per annum, in such cases, claimant/s may be given an option to convert the same under Section 166 of the Act. If claim petition is not converted, even after the order/direction, same be dismissed. In this regards reference many be made to ratio laid down in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra).

11.5.It also required to be noted that in the Fatal injury cases, multiplier cannot be applied as same is applied only in the cases where claim petition is preferred by the injured. Reference be made to ratio laid down in the case of National Company Ltd. Versus Gurumallamma, reported in AIR 2009 SCW 7434, para No.8. Similar kind of observations are made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), at Para No.17 (page No.3112 in AIR), which reads under:-

“... Therefore, where the application is under section 163-A of the Act, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the structured formula basis, even where compensation is not specified with reference to the annual income of the deceased, or is more than Rs. 40,000/- by applying the formula : (2/3 x A1 x M), that is two-thirds of the annual income multiplied by the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased would be the compensation”. 11.6.From the above referred ratios, laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, it becomes amply clear that Tribunal is not required to make calculation of compensation on the basis of application of multiplier. But Tribunal is only required to grant compensation as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act, taking into considering the age and income of the deceased and figure shown against the age and income of the deceased. For an example, if, monthly income of the deceased who was aged about 48 years at the time of accident, is assessed as Rs.2,500/- per month (Rs.30,000/- per annum), how the compensation should be calculated. Since Rs.30,000/- per annum is not shown anywhere in column of “ANNUAL INCOME” of the Second Schedule of the Act, now, the question, is how the amount of compensation to be calculated. In such cases, average of figures in the income group of Rs.24,000/- per annum and Rs.36,000/- per annum i.e Rs.2,86,000/- and Rs.4,32,000, respectively are required to be taken into consideration. Average of Rs.2,86,000/- and Rs.4,32,000, comes to Rs.3,59,000. Out of the said amount of 3,59,000, 1/3 is required to be deducted in consideration of expenses incurred by deceased towards maintaining himself and, therefore, net amount of future income loss comes to approximately Rs.2,40,000/-. [Reference:- National Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s P.C. Chacko, reported in 2012 ACJ 1065 (Devision Bench of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, Ernakulan Bench)]

11.7.It is to be remembered that in every claim petition preferred u/s 163-A of the Act, whether the deceased is married or not, unlike as claim petition preferred u/s 166 of the Act, one-third (1/3rd) amount from the actual income of the deceased should be deducted towards personal and living expenditures of the deceased.

11.8.Over and above the future income loss, claimant/s is/are entitled to such amount, specified under the Second Schedule of the Act. However, in the case of Sapan v/s United India Insurance Com. Ltd., reported in AIR 2008 SC 2281, held that when claim petition preferred u/s 163A and claimant would remain crippled throughout life and would have no enjoyment for life, Tribunal can award further sum of Rs. 75,000/- for future medical treatment.

12. What if the cheque given for payment of premium of insurance policy is dishonoured:- 12.1.Reference may be made to the ratios laid down in the cases of Deddappa v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 595 = AIR 2008 SC 767 = 2007 AIR SCW 7948 and United India Insurance Com. Ltd v/s Laxmamma, reported in 2012 ACJ 1307 (SC). In both these judgments, it has been held that when cheque given for payment of premium of policy, is dishonoured and on that count Insurance Company cancels the policy by intimating the insured of such dishonour of cheque before the date of accident, then in such situation Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay amount of compensation but if insurer fails to intimate the insured about such dishonour and cancellation of policy before the date of accident, then in  such situation insurer is held liable to pay amount of compensation and Insurance Company may prosecute its remedy to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the insurer.

13. What is the meaning of “Arising out of use of Motor Vehicle”:- 13.1.Legislature has advisedly used the expression 'arising out of the use of motor vehicle' and not 'connected with the use of motor vehicle' under Sections 140, 163-A and 166 of the Act and, therefore, there must be more direct and pronounced linkage or nexus between the use of motor vehicle and the accident which has resulted. A mere casual connection is not sufficient.

13.2.To decide the such issue one may advantageously refer to the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court, reported as Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. v. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530 = AIR 1991 Sc 1769. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court considered at length, the questions whether the fire and explosion of the petrol tanker in which deceased lost his life could be said to have resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, namely the petrol tanker. The court answered the question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the claimant and against the insurance company.

13.3.It is true that the case Shivaji Dayanu Patil (supra) arose from the claim for no-fault compensation under section 92A of the 1939 Act (u/s 163-A of the New Act). All the material facts were considered at length by Hon'ble Apex Court in above referred case and, therefore, said principle is also applicable in the claim petition preferred u/s 166 of the Act.

13.4.Ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil (supra) is also relied upon by Hon'ble Apex Court in several decisions, namely, Samir Chanda, v/s Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 1999 SC 136 and Smt. Rita Devi v/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1930 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yadu Sambhaji More, reported in AIR 2011 SC 666.

14. Whether Finance Company, which has advanced loan for the purpose of purchase of vehicle under the 'Hire Purchase Agreement' can be said to be the owner of the Vehicle:- 14.1.Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godavari Finance v/s Degala Satyanarayananamma, reported in 2008 ACJ 1612 has held in para 13 as under:-

“13. In case of a motor vehicle which is subjected to a Hire-Purchase Agreement, the financier cannot ordinarily be treated to be the owner. The person who is in possession of the vehicle, and not the financier being the owner would be liable to pay damages for the motor accident”.

14.2.Reference may also be made ratio laid down in the case of Anup Sarmah v/s Bhola Nath Sharma, reported in IV (2012) CPJ 3 (SC), para No.8 & 9.

15. When an accident, involving two vehicles and driver of one of the unknown vehicle sped away after the accident, whether in such situation, claim petition is maintainable against the other tortfeasor, in view of the provisions contained under Sections 161 & 163 of the Act:-

15.1.Hon'ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No.3354 of 2000 with Civil Application No.746 of 2005 dated 13.7.2005 has held in such situation claim petition is not maintainable. But Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhanuben P. Joshi V/s. Kantilal B. Parmar, reported in 1994 ACJ 714 (DB) has held otherwise. Facts of the  Bhanuben P. Joshi (supra) as under:-

15.1.1.In the said case accident occurred because one unknown truck dashed the motor cycle from behind and after the accident, truck driver sped away with the truck and remained unidentified and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries. Claimants of the said claim petition averred that motor cycle was being driven by its rider at excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner. Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by holding that there was no rashness on the part of the motor cyclist. After noting the said facts Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed that motor cycle was being driven in rash and negligent manner and in flagrant violation of traffic rules and regulations and finally reversed the finding of Tribunal. 15.1.2.It is also held in para No.9 of the above referred ratio, namely Bhanuben P. Joshi (supra) that victims of road accident are entitled to claim compensation from all or any of the joint tortfeasors, it would not be necessary to apportion the extent of contribution of each driver of happening of unfortunate accident. 15.2.From the above referred ratios it becomes clear that even if driver and owner of the unknown vehicle is not joined as parties opponents, claim petition is maintainable against any one of the tortfeasors.

16. Whether all the joint tortfeasors are required to be joined as party opponents in the claim petition:- 16.1.Hon'ble Gujarat Court in the case of O.I.Com.Ltd. v/s Zubedaben Pathan, in F.A. No.651 of 2012 and judgment dated 18.02.2010, delivered by Hon'ble Kerala Court in the case of U.I.Com.Ltd. v/s Mariamma George, in M.A.C.A. No.744 of 2005 have held that the claimant/s is/are not entitled to recover amount of compensation, jointly and severally from the insurance company/companies, if all the tortfeasors are not joined.

16.2.But Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Amarsing Jugabhai v/s Vijyaben Dhuliya, reported in 1996(3) GLR 493 has held in para No.23 that:- “Where a person is injured in a motor accident which occurs not on account of his negligence, but because the drivers of collided vehicles were negligent, the claimants are entitled to damage jointly and severally from the negligent respondents. Every wrong-doer is liable for the whole damage and it does not matter whether they acted between themselves as equals. A decree passed against two or more tortfeasors can be executed against any one of the defendants and such defendant can be compelled to pay the entire amount of damages decreed. It is further clear that the defendant who is compelled to pay the entire amount of damages decreed has a right to contribution from the other wrong-doer. The liability in the case of composite negligence, unless must normally should not be apportioned because the claimant is able to recover the whole amount of compensation from owner or driver of either vehicles. In case of composite negligence, liability for compensation in normal circumstances, should not be apportioned, as both wrong-doers are jointly and severally liable for the whole loss. Rule of apportionment of liability applies in a case of contributory negligence, i.e., where the injured himself is also guilty of negligence.”

16.3.Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kusumben Vipinchandra Shah v. Arvindbhai Narmadashankar Raval, reported in AIR 2007 Guj. 121. Wherein it is held that:-

“As held in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Gurunath Shahu (supra), the finding given by the Tribunal in such a case regarding apportionment of liability would be tentative for the purpose of subsequent proceeding which might be filed by the defendant tortfeasor against the other joint tortfeasor who was not a party to the first proceeding. But such tentativeness for the purpose of contribution between two joint tortfeasors did not at all affect the right of the plaintiff-claimant to recover full damages from the defendant tortfeasor against whom the first proceeding was filed”.

16.4.From the above referred ratios it becomes clear that claimant/s is/are not required to join all the tortfeasors as party opponent/s.

17. Whether the point of negligence and liability of insurer, decided by the co-ordinate Tribunal is binding on the other co-ordinate Tribunal, if the claim petition has arisen from the same accident:- 17.1.Hon'ble the Privy Council in its decision rendered in the case of Syed Mohamamd Saadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg, reported in AIR (30) 1943 PC 115 has observed as under :- "In order that a decision should operate as res judicata between co-defendants, three conditions must exist : (1) There must be a conflict of interest between those co-defendants, (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and (3) the question between the co-defendants must have been finally decided."

17.2.Thus, the Privy Council has laid down that if the aforesaid three conditions stand satisfied, res judicata can operate between the co-defendants also. Said principle is also followed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of United India Insurance Com. ltd. v/s. Laljibhai Hamirbhai, reported in 2007 (1) GLR 633.

18. Whether a claim petition preferred by the a claimant (also the owner of the offending vehicle, without involving another vehicle) alleging therein that accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle owned by him, is maintainable:-

18.1.Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Dhanraj v/s N.I.A.Com. Ltd., reported in 2005 ACJ No.1, Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Jhuma Saha, reported in 2007 ACJ 818 and N.I.A. Com. Ltd. v/s Meera Bai, reported in 2007 ACJ 821 has interpreted Section 147 and it has been held that Section 147 does not require an Insurance Company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.

18.2.To decide such point, fact of each case is required to be taken into consideration. Facts of Dhanraj (supra) are:- Appellant (owner of jeep) along with certain other persons were travelling in his own Jeep and said Jeep met with an accident. In the accident, the Appellant as well as other passengers received injuries. In the claims petitions, Tribunal held the Driver of the Jeep responsible for the accident. In all the Claim Petitions filed by the other passengers, Tribunal directed that the Appellant (as the owner) as well as the Driver and Insurance Company were liable to pay compensation. In the Claim Petition filed by the appellant-owner of the jeep, the Tribunal directed the Driver and the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the appellant. Insurance Company filed an Appeal before the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. That Appeal was allowed and held that as the appellant was the owner of the jeep and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay him any compensation. Against the said order of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, appeal was preferred by appellant-owner. In the said appeal, after incorporating Section 147 of the Act, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that comprehensive  policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an Insurance Company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 18.3.Relying upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi and Ors. 1998 ACJ 121, it is further held in para No.9 that the liability of an Insurance Company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards third person or in respect of damages to property. 18.4.Thus, where the insured i.e. an owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party the Insurance Company has no liability also. 18.5.From the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhanraj (supra), it becomes amply clear that comprehensive policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an Insurance Company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.

19. What is the meaning of “Public Place”, as defined  u/s 2(34) of the Act:- 19.1.Definition of 'Public Place', reads as under:- "2(34) "Public place" means, a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage."

19.2.The definition of 'public place' under the M. V. Act is, therefore, wide enough to include any place which members of public use and to which they have a right of access. The right of access may be permissive, limited, restricted or regulated by oral or written permission, by tickets, passes or badges or on payment of fee. The use may be restricted generally or to particular purpose or purposes. What is necessary is that the place must be accessible to the members of public and be available for their use, enjoyment, avocation or other purpose.

19.3.Vary question came up for consideration before the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in Pandurang Chimaji Agale and another v. New India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune and others, AIR 1988 Bom 248, wherein the Hon'ble Court after taking note of the divergent views of different High Courts with regard to the meaning and import of the term 'public place', as defined under Section 2(24) of the 1939 Act (corresponding to Section 2(34) of the M. V. Act), proceeded to hold that for the purpose of Chapter VIII of the said Act, the expression 'public place' will cover all places including those of private ownership where members of the public have an access whether free or controlled in any manner whatsoever.

19.4.Relying on the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court (cited supra), a Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathi Devi and others, 1999 ACJ 1520 (Madras) has held as follows:- "16. The definition of 'public place' is very wide. A perusal of the same reveals that the public at large has a right to access though that right is regulated or restricted. It is also seen that this Act is beneficial legislation, so also the law of interpretation has to be construed in the benefit of public. In the overall legal position and the fact that if the language is simple and unambiguous, it has to be construed in the benefit of the public, we are of the view that the word 'public place' wherever used as a right or controlled in any manner whatsoever, would attract section 2(24) of the Act. In view of this, as stated, the private place used with permission or without permission would amount to be a 'public place'”. 19.5.Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Rajan v. John, 2009 (2) TAC 260 (Ker) : (AIR 2009 Ker 136), the Hon'ble Court while considering the definition of 'public place' for the purpose of Section 2(34) of the Act, proceeded to hold that the term 'public place' cannot be given a restricted meaning in- as much as, it is not to be taken as a place where public have uncontrolled access at all times. 'Public place' for the purpose of the Act has to be understood with reference to the places to which a vehicle has access. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Court proceeded to hold that the private premises of a house where goods vehicle is allowed entry, is a 'public place' for the purpose of Section 2(34) of the Act and therefore the insurer is liable to pay the compensatioon.

19.6.From the above referred ratios, it becomes clear that in any private premises, where goods vehicle is allowed entry, is a 'public place' for the purpose of Section 2(34) of the Act.

20. What if, the vehicle which met with an accident was sold of by its registered owner before the date of accident and name of the transferee owner (purchaser) is not entered into the R.C. Book:- 20.1.Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and Hon'ble Kerala High Court, in the cases reported in 2011 ACJ 577 & 1997 ACJ 260, respectively, it has been held that when registered owner denies his liability to pay amount of compensation on the ground that he had sold the vehicle in question and received the consideration thereof and handed over the possession of the vehicle along with R.C. Book and relevant transfer Forms for getting the vehicle transferred in the name of transferee much prior to the accident, then in that circumstances transferee owner cannot be allowed to evade his liability to pay amount of compensation on the ground that he is not registered owner.

20.2.But Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa alias Leela v/s. Shakuntala, reported in 2011 ACJ 705(SC) = AIR 2011 SC 682 in the above referred judgment Hon'bel Apex Court, in paragraphs Nos.12 to 16 has held as under:- “12. The question of the liability of the recorded owner of a vehicle after its sale to another person was considered by this Court in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748 : (AIR 2001 SC 3939). In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision, the Court observed and held as follows: "9. Mr. Iyer appearing for the Appellant submitted that the High Court was wrong in ignoring the oral evidence on record. He submitted that the oral evidence clearly showed that the Appellant was not the owner of the car on the date of the accident. Mr. Iyer submitted that merely because the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. did not mean that the ownership of the vehicle had not been transferred. Mr. Iyer submitted that the real owner of the car was Mr. Roy Thomas. Mr. Iyer submitted that Mr. Roy Thomas had been made party-Respondent No.9 to these Appeals. He pointed out that an Advocate had filed appearance on behalf of Mr. Roy Thomas but had then applied for and was permitted to withdraw the appearance. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had been duly served and a public notice had also been issued. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had chosen not to appear in these Appeals. He submitted that the liability, if any, was of Mr. Roy Thomas. 10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the Appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However the Appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as. the owner. The Appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in these Appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party either before MACT or the High Court. In these Appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the Appellant and Mr. Roy Thomas. It will be for the Appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Mr. Roy Thomas if, in law, he is entitled to do so." (Emphasis added) 13. Again, in P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan and Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 624, this Court examined the same issue under somewhat similar set of facts as in the present case. In paragraph 4 of the decision, this Court observed and held as follows: "4. These appeals are filed by the appellants. The Insurance Company has chosen not to file any appeal. The question before this Court is whether by reason of the fact that the vehicle has been transferred to Respondent 4 and thereafter to Respondent 5, the appellant got absolved from liability to the third person who was injured. This question has been answered by this Court in T.V. Jose (Dr.) v. Chacko P.M. (reported in 2001 (8) SCC 748) wherein it is held that even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person." (Emphasis added) 14. The decision in Dr. T.V. Jose was rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But having regard to the provisions of section 2(30) and section 50 of the Act, as noted above, the ratio of the decision shall apply with equal force to the facts of the case arising under the 1988 Act.On the basis of these decisions, the inescapable conclusion is that Jitender Gupta, whose name continued in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the truck was equally liable for payment of the compensation amount. Further, since an insurance policy in respect of the truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 15. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that even though the registered owner of the vehicle was Jitender Gupta, after the sale of the truck he had no control over it and the possession and control of the truck were in the hands of the transferee, Salig Ram. No liability can, therefore, be fastened on Jitender Gupta, the transferor of the truck. In support of this submission he relied upon a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 414 : (AIR 2008 SC 735). The facts of the case in Deepa Devi are entirely different. In that case the vehicle was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In that circumstance, this Court observed that the owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle remained under requisition, the owner did not exercise any control over it: the driver might still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he had to drive the vehicle according to the direction of the officer of the State, in whose charge the vehicle was given. Save and except the legal ownership, the registered owner of the vehicle had lost all control over the vehicle. The decision in Deepa Devi was rendered on the special facts of that case and it has no application to the facts of the case in hand. 16. In light of the discussion made above it is held that the compensation amount is equally realisable from respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and it is directed to make full payment of the compensation amount as determined by the Claims Tribunal to the appellants within two months from the date of this judgment”. 20.3.From the above referred ratio of Hon'ble Apex Court, it can be held that, as on the date of accident, transferor owner was the registered owner of offending vehicle, he must be deemed to continue as owner of the offending vehicle for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, even though under the Civil Law, he ceased to be its owner after its sale and Transferor Owner and Transferee Owner (both) are equally liable to pay the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant.

21. Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for want of prosecution or non-appearance of the claimant and/or his Advocate:- 21.1.Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharatbhai Narsingbhai Chaudhry v/s Malek Rafik Malek Himantbhai Malek, reported in 2012 ACJ 1262 = AIR 2011 Gujarat 150 has held in Para No.5.14 and 6.1 that Claims Tribunals are not empowered to dismiss claim application for default of claimant after framing of issues. It is further held that Tribunals are required to decide claim petitions on merits with a view to provide substantial justice to the victim of accident, keeping in mind the object of benevolent legislation, instead of entering into niceties and technicalities.

21.2.However, Full Benches of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Jacob Thomas v. C. Pandian, reported in AIR 2006 Kerala 77 and Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of  Mohammad Yousuf Wani v/s Abdul Rehman Gujri, reported in AIR 1982 Kerala 146 have taken a view that when O. 9 of CPC is specifically made applicable to proceedings before claims Tribunal, it cannot be said that Tribunal has no power to dismiss application for default when the case is posted for hearing if claimant is absent and respondents are present. But, S. 168 did not insist that in all cases award should be passed but only directed that Tribunal "may make an award", once it makes a judgement or award, mandates of Rules framed under the Act has to be complied with.

22. Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for non production of documents mentioned under Rule 211 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules,1989:- 22.1.There is no judgment on this point but Rule 211, sub-rule 5 provides that:- with all claim petition, preferred u/s 166 of the Act, FIR, Injury Certificate or Postmortem Report and details of owner and insurance policy of offending vehicle, supplied either by police or regional transport authority should be furnished.

22.1.1.Above referred provisions are mandatory provision and deviation therefrom, would lead to dismissal of the claim petition. However, it is to be noted that along with claim petition, original documents are not required to be furnished and only photo copy of such documents will do. Original documents may be produced when the stage of evidence comes.

23. How to decide a claim petition, where insurer has taken a defence of violation of  'Permit':- 23.1.In some claim petitions, insurer takes defence of violation and/or breach of 'Permit'. To understand legal position, some examples with the case law are required to be taken into consideration. Some examples and findings of the Hon'ble High Courts are as under:-

1.Insurer seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that offending vehicle was being plied without valid permit. It has come on record that insurer had insured the said vehicle without there being valid permit. Therefore, it is held that it is the duty of Insurer to verify the fact that permit of vehicle was valid or not at the time of insuring the vehicle and, as insurer having insured the vehicle without valid permit, it cannot seek exemption from liability. This has been held by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of U.I.I.Com. v/s Prakashi Devi, reported in 2011 ACJ 1683.

2.Insurer 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. It has come on record that policy was valid. Even it was not the case of Insurer that passengers were being carried for hire and reward and policy did not cover the case of Third Party. It was therefore, held that victim did not suffer injuries while travelling in the ‘Taxi’ for hire or reward and mere expiry of permit would not absolve Insurer to pay compensation, as no provision of the Act is shown by Insurer to point out that owner of ‘Taxi’ was under legal obligation, not to ply ‘Taxi’ after the expiry of permit. This has been held by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sethunath v/s John Varghese, reported in 2011 ACJ 2242.

3.Truck was loaded with coal and carrying 12 passengers, capsized. Truck was insured covering driver, cleaner and 6 coolies. Insurer contended that truck was over loaded as it was carrying more that 8 persons and further contended that there is breach of policy. It is held that Insurer has failed to show that carrying more number of coolies would be treated as breach of policy and, it has been further held that if at all there is any breach of policy, it is not so fundamental as to put end to the contract totally. Finally Insurer was directed to satisfy the highest six awards of coolies. This has been held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay v/s Sukhiyabai, reported in 2012 ACJ 287.

4.Truck hit a person standing on roadside and he sustained grievous injuries. Tribunal found that Truck was being plied without valid permit and owner of the Truck has committed breach of the terms and condition of policy. After holding this, Tribunal directed insurer to pay compensation and then recover from the owner. This award of Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court. Hon'ble High Court, after relying upon the several Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, has held that award of Tribunal is just and proper and directions of Tribunal against insurer to 'pay and rocover' is just and proper. This has been held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (DB) in the case of N.I. Com. v/s Radhey Shyam, reported in 2013 ACJ 788.

5.Mini bus being plied on the route for which it had no permit. It is also found that in the said bus 13 passengers travelling against the permit of 12 passengers. Held that there is violation of insurance policy and Insurer held not responsible but order of 'pay and recover' is passed. This has been held by Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of N.I. Com. v/s Balbir Singh, reported in 2013 ACJ 1008.

23.2From the above referred ratios, it becomes clear that it is for the insurer to verify before insuring the vehicle, as to whether vehicle is having valid permit or not and, if insurer having insured the vehicle without valid permit, it cannot seek exemption from liability afterwards. 23.3If it is found that owner has violated terms of the policy, Tribunal can pass an order exonerating insurer but may also pass and order of 'pay and recover'.

24.Whether an award passed by the Tribunal can be reviewed:- 24.1Many time claimant or opponent/s including insurer prefer/s an application for review of award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the award on a question on which the judgment of the Tribunal is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of Superior Court. To deal with such kind of application, reference may be made to Explanation of Order XLVII (47) Rule – 1 of C.P.C., 1908, which reads as under:- Explanation of Order XLVII (47) Rule – 1 of C.P.C.:- “The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment”.

24.1.1.From the above referred provision, it becomes clear that when an application for review of award, passed by the Tribunal is moved on the ground that the award on a question on which the judgment of the Tribunal is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of Superior Court, such application can not be entertained.

24.2Various High Courts have taken a view that Tribunal does not have powers to modify, alter, recall and revers it's earlier award. And if such an order is passed in review petition/application, it is nullity, non est and void. Relying upon the several decisions, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of N.I.Com. v.s Rajbir Sing, reported in 2012 AAC 3007 that tribunal does not have powers to review.

24.3Reference may also be made to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CTO v/s Makkad Plastic Agencies, reported in AIR 2011 SCW 2154, wherein it is observed in para No.17 as under:- “… It is also now an established proposition of law that review is a creature of the statute and such an order of review could be passed only when an express power of review is provided in the statute. In the absence of any statutory provision for review, exercise of power of review under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible...”.

24.4Bare reading of above referred observations of Hon'ble Apex Court reveals the fact that review is a creature of the statute and such an order of review could be passed only when an express power of review is provided in the statute. As, there is no provision for review in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, award of the tribunal is not review-able.

24.5On the above referred issue, reference may also be made to ratios laid down by Hon'ble Clacutta High Court in the case reported in 2008 ACJ 1248 (DB) and N.I.Com. v/s Chhabirani, reported in 2013 ACJ 1130 and ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case reported in 2008 ACJ 1248 (DB) and N.I.Com. v/s Nani Gopal Debnath, reported in 2012 ACJ 2720. 25. Details of Proposal Forms for Private Cars/Motorised Two Wheelers- Package Policy and Liability Only/ Act Policy:- 25.1 Details above may be gathered from the India Motor Tariff. Pleased See Section- 5, PROPOSAL FORMS at page No.88 to 101.

26. Standard wordings in respect of the Policy including Premium computation Table, Certificate of Insurance and Cover Note:- 26.1. Details above may be gathered from the India Motor Tariff. Pleased See Section- 6, at page No.102 to 176.

26.1.1.Details can also be downloaded from IDRA web site by 	tying/searching 'India Motor Tariff'.

27. There are certain minor points/issues which create little trouble for Ld. Judges to decide such tricky points/issues. Such points/issues, with citations and ready reckoner are as under:- 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 140 – No fault liability – claimant need not to plea and establish negligence he is required to prove that accident occurred due to vehicular accident 2011 ACJ 1603 (Bombay) 3- 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) 4- O 41 R 33- whether the appellate court has powers to modify the award in absence of claimant- held –yes 2011 ACJ 1570 (Guj) 5- Jurisdiction – claimant residing in District H- insurance company is also having having office in District C- whether the Tribunal at District C has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition- held- yes 2009 ACJ 564 (SC) 6- U/S 166 & 163A- income of deceased more than 40000- whether Tribunal can reject an application u/s 163A? Held – no- Tribunal ought to have convert the same one u/s 166 2004 ACJ 934 (SC) 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. 7- 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 8- 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)- SC judgments followed. 9- Widow- remarriage by her- whether claim petition by her maintainable?- held- yes-whether 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 2008ACJ 816( MP), 2003 ACJ 542(MP), 2004 ACJ 1467(MP) 1992 ACJ 1048 (Raj), 2011 ACJ 1625 (Gau) 10- Limitation – claim petition filed in 2005, whereas accident occurred in the year 1990- whether claim petition is time barred?- held- no 2011ACJ 1585 (Jark) 11- 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) 12- 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 judgement of Guj High court, Jst RKAJ 13- 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 rod 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) 14- 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) 15- Interest –income tax- TDS- guideline 2007 ACJ 1897 (GUJ) 16- Whether deduction towards EPF and GIS be made in calculating income of the deceased?- held- no 2011 ACJ 1441(SC) 17- 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) 18- 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) 19- 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) 20 – 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) 21- Ganesh idol- whether falls with in the definition of goods- held –yes 2011 ACJ 2091 (KAR) 22- 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 (HP) 23- 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) 24- 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) 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)- Also see Notes Nos. 29, 51 & 52. 25-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)

26- 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) 27- 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) 28-Driving licence- liability of IC- ‘light motor vehicle’- driver had licence to ply auto rickshaw and was driving auto rickshaw delivery van, which caused accident-Tribunal 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) 29- Act policy- pillion rider- 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) 30- 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) 31-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) 32- 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) 33-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) 34- 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) 35- Deceased a TP- comprehensive policy- liability of IC- after new act liability of IC is unlimited towards TP 2011 ACJ 1860 (RAJ) 36-Two vehicular not driven by owner but the deceased- no additional premium was paid to cover the risk of other than the owner of vehicle-Whether IC is liable- held- no 2009 ACJ 998 (SC)

37-Pregnant woman suffered injury which led to death of child in the womb- Rs 2 lacs awarded for the death of the child in the womb2005 ACJ 69 (KAR), 2067 ACJ 2067 (MP), 2011 ACJ 2400 (MAD), 2011 ACJ 2432 (SC) 38-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) 39- Coolie- suffered loss of hand- amputation of hand- SC held it to be case of 100% functional disablement- 2011 ACJ 2436 (SC) 40- 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) 41-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) 42-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) 43- 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) 44- Whether IC is liable even if the driver had forged driving licence?- held- yes-mere fact of licence being forged is not enough to absolve the IC from liability 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1611 (HP) 45-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 46-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- Jaiprakash (SC), 2011 ACJ 1916 (BOM) 47- 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) 48-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) 49-IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that 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) 50-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 2011 ACJ 1766 (MAD) but see 2013 ACJ 1227 ((HP) 51- 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) 52-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) 53-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) 54-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.

55-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) 55- 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 56-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. 57-Deceased aged 57- multiplier of 9 awarded by SC- relying on Sarla Verma 58-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) 59-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 liability-held- 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) 60-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. 61- 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) 62-Tribunal is a ‘COURT’ and proceedings before it are judicial proceedings- whether Evidence Act applies to MV Act? –held –yes- 2011 ACJ 2228 (JAR) 63-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) 64-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 reward-mere 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) 65-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) 66- 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) 67-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) 68-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) 69- 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) 70-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) 71-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 policy-when 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) 72- 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 73- 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 74- 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 75- 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 163-A nor Section 166 would be applicable. 76- 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 Ilkal-Kustagl, National Highway, a bullock cart proceeding ahead of the said motor cycle carrying iron-sheet,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 163-A 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 163-A 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 163-A 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 163-A 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 77- 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 non-disclosure 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 78-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 cover-note 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 79- 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 80- 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 in stead the respondent No.2 is 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. 166-effect - 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 insured-owner - appeal allowed. 2008(7) SCC 526 81- 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 82-Whether a person who hired a goods carriage vehicle would come within purview of Sub-sec. 1 of S. 147 of the Act although no goods of his as such were carried in the vehicle - claimant-respondent 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 83- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 147(5), S. 149(1) - Insurance Act, 1938 - S. 64-VB - 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 84-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 brick-kiln 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 85- 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 third-party 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 sub-sec. (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 sub-sec. (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 sub-sec. (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 sub-sec. (4) with the proviso thereunder and sub-sec. (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". 86- 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". 87-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 insurer-company 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 88-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 89- 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 - insurer-appellant 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 90- 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 appellant-owner 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 91- 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 appellant-owner 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 92-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 appellant-Insurance 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 non-disclosure 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 93- 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 94-(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 respondent-owner of the scooter and appellant-insurance 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 sub-sec. (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.

(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 95-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 96- 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 97- 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 98- 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 12-year girl in accident - Claimants are from poor back-ground - 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]. 2006(2) GLH 15 (SC) – N.I.A Com v/s Kusum Rai 99- 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 100- 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 101- 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 proceeding-many SC ratios considered. 2009(8) SCC 377 – N.I.A. Com v/s Kusum

102- 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) SCC-370 –Blabir Kaur v/s N.I.A.Com 103- (A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - u/s. 2(10) 3-9, 10, 14-16, 19-21, 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. 104-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. 105- 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. 106- 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 -12 107- 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 108- 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) 109- 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 110- 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 111- 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 reward-as per registration certi. All such persons come within the expression TP and since policy covers TP risk, IC is held liable 2011 ACJ 2638 112- 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) 113- 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 114- 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 115- 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 116-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 934 117- 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 118-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- yes-Issuance of notice neither proves objections of IC nor draws any adverse inference against insured- 2012 ACJ 107- 1985 ACJ 397 SC followed 119-IC- 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 120-Dependants- death of unmarried woman- living separately from the claimant- held claimant was not dependent and not entitled for compensation but entitled to get 50000 u/s 140 of the Act 2012 ACJ 155- 2007 ACJ 1279 SC followed 121- 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 177 122- 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 179 123- U/s 166 – 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 233 124- 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 125- 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 271 126- 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 287 127- 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. 128- U/s 163A- Whether the IC is required to be exonerated in a case where IC hasfailed to prove and point out that deceased himself was negligent- Held- No- IC held liable. 2012 SC 797- Sinitha's case. 129- 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- 130- Receipt of income in foreign currency- amount of compensation is required to be awarded at prevalent rate of conversion- 2012 ACJ 349

131- U/s 163A- deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner- IC held not liable- 2012 ACJ 391 132- Dismissal of claim petition on the ground that claimants have not proved the accident by examining the doctor who had conducted PM- 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) 133- 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) 134- 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) 135- Composite negligence- non-joinder 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) 136- 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) 137- 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) 138- 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) 139- 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) 140- 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) 141- 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) 142- Intentional murder by use of Motor Vehicle- Whether the claim petition is maintainable? - Held- No- SC decisions referred to. 2012 ACJ 1188 (Chht) 143- 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 144- 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) 145- 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 filling a petition on no fault liability can be claimed on the basis of income with a cap of Rs. 40000/- 2012 ACJ 1251 (Del)- various SC decisions are considered. 146- 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 147- 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 148- 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. 149- 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. 150- 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). 151- 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 152- u/s 147 (1)- Insurance Act u/s 64-VB- 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 153- 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 sue of owner- IC cannot be held liable- Sc judgments followed- 2012 ACJ 1329 (P&H) 154- 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) 155- Tractor-trailer- Tractor-trolley- 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) indicates that when trailer is attached to tractor, it becomes goods vehicle and therefore, IC is liable. 2012 ACJ 1408 (Kar), 2012 ACJ 2737 (All) SC judgements followed 156- Whether the dependents of agriculturist is entitled for prospective income- Held- Yes- 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) – Santosh Devi 157- Whether PM report is must to prove accident- Held – No. 2012 ACJ 1434 (Ori) Relevant on page No. 1439, para 1.5 158- 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) 159- Leg injuries resulted in fracture- Doctor access disablement as 20-25% 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 160- 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) 161- Cover Note- IC did not produced 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) 162- Murder- Application u/s 163A- whether maintainable?- Held -yes. 2012 ACJ 1512 (Ker) 163- 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) 164- 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) 165- Jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat– guideline.-2012 ACJ 1608 166- 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) 167- 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) 168- 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

169- 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. 2012 ACJ 1738 170- Doctors cannot be called to prove documents with respect to prolonged treatment unless they create doubt- 2012 ACJ 1847 171- Private car policy- gratuitous passengers- whether IC is laible?- Held -no. 2012 ACJ 1880 172- Managing Trustee died in the accident- Vehicle was registered in his name- whether he can be held as owner? -Held- No. 2012 ACJ 1886 173- 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 174- U/s 163A- Claim petition under 163A is maintainable against other vehicle, which was not at fault?- Held- Yes. 2012 ACJ 1896-SC judgements followed 175- 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. 176- Whether claimant can convert an application u/s 166 to 163A and vise versa?- Held- yes- SC judgements followed- 2011 ACJ 721 2012 ACJ 1986 177- Res judicata- applicable when an order passed u/s 140 of the Act has attained finality in eyes of Law- 2012 (2) GLH 465- Siddik U. Solanki. 178- 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. 179- U/s 163A- whether driver of the offending vehicle is required to be joined? Held- Not necessary. 2012 AAC 2495 (Del) 180- 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) 181- Tractor-trolley- When trolley is attached with the tractor is one vehicle- 2012 ACJ 2022 and 2117 (CHH)

183- 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) 184- 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. 185- 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. 186- 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) 187- 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. 188- 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. 2012 ACJ 2269 (Del)- 2012 ACJ 2319 (P&H)- 2011 ACJ 705 = AIR 2011 SC 682, Pushpa v/s Shakuntala, relied upon. But also see- 2006 ACJ 1441(SC)- Tilak Singh 188- Central M.V. Rules, 1989, Rule-41- 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) 189- 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. 190- 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). 191- 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). 192- 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). 193- 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) 194- Goods Vehicle- gratuitous passenger- liability of insurance company- Held- No. 2012 ACJ 2419 (Chauhan Jadugar). 195- 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.

196- 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). 197- 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) 198- 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) 199- Non-possession 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. 200- Production of fake licence by driver- owner verified it and found it genuine- whether in such case, IC can avoid its liability-held- No. 2012 AAC 2636 (Del) 201- 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. 202- S.166, S.163A - MOTOR VEHICLES - 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- Dhanjibhai K Gadhvi. 203- 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 163-A 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 sub-section (1) of Section 163-A 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 three-Judge Bench in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441 : (AIR 1977 SC 1248) 204- 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 semi-literate 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. 205- 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. 206- Identification of vehicle- In FIR, offending vehicle is described as Blue Colour bike whereas driver-owner 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). 207- Helper- Act Policy- whether, helper can be treated as passenger?- Held- No. SC judgment followed. 2012 ACJ 2554 (GAU).  208- 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 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. 209- Non-joinder of driver- IC did not agitated the same during trial, though plea of non-joinder 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. 210- 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. 212- 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 owner-driver- 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. 213- Two pillion rider- offending tractor dashed with said 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). 214- Bus came in contact with live wire- Claimant died because of electrocution- whether IC is liable?- Held- yes SC judgment followed. - 2012 AAC 2886. 215- 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. 216- 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. 217 – Future income in the case 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 743 218- DL- Fake DL- IC adduced no evidence to prove that insured committed willful default of IP- whether IC can seek to avoid its liability-held- No. Swaran Singh is followed- Copy is available in the folder. 2012 ACJ 2797. 219- Amedment in claim petition preferred u/s 163A- whether can be allowed- Held- Yes 2012 ACJ 2809 220- Jurisdiction- after the death of the 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 221- 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. 222- Loss of academic year- what should be amount of compensation- Held- Rs.50,000/-.2012 AAC 3126. 223- 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. 224- U/s 147- Pay and recover- order- Good Order- Internet. 2012 AAC 3151(ALLAHBAD). N.I.Co., Varanasi v.s. Smt. Abhirajji Devi. 225- DL – IC failed to prove that driver not having valid licence- IC held liable to pay. 2012 AAC 3206. 226- Vehicle was insured but not having valid permit- breach of policy- order of pay and recover passed. 2012 AAC 3234. 227-  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. 228- 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. 229- 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. 230- 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. 231- 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 liability-held- No- when vehicle was given on hire with its existing policy, IC cannot avoid its liability. 2013 ACJ 10 (Mad) 214 – 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) 215 – Public place- agriculture field is public place?- Held Yes- 2013 ACJ 30 (AP) 215 – 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) 216 – 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. 217- Whether the driver of the offending vehicle is required to joined as party opponent in each case?- Held- No- in absence of non-joinder 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) 218 -  MOTOR VEHICLES - 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 219- unknown vehicle-whether claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable?- Held- yes. 2013 ACJ 290 (Del) 220- 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. 221- Driver-owner held responsible for causing the accident- other vehicle which dashed with the vehicle of driver-owner, did not have valid and effective policy- Tribunal jointly held driver-owner and driver of the other vehicle responsible in the said accident and directed the IC of the driver-owner to pay compensation- whether sustainable- Held- No- As policy covers only TP and not owner. 2013 ACJ 393 (Cal)- SC judgments followed. 222- 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. 223- Medical negligence- sterilization operation- failure of- liability of State. 2013 ACJ 406 (HP) 224- 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. 225- M.V. Act- duty of advocates- Guidelines- Good judgement. 2013 ACJ 474. - Copied from inter net. 226- 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). 227- 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). 228- 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). 229- 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 595 230- Endorsement on licence- defence of- whether can be allowed at the stage of 140?- Held- No. 2013 ACJ 598. 231- Contributory negligence- Child- Child cannot be held negligent in the accident. 2013 ACJ 673 232- 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 7 168 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. 233- 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 re-trial 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. 234- Jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal - Claim for loss of business income due to non-use of vehicle - Falls under head damage to property - Claims Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide such claim. AIR 2007 Guj 39. 235- 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 co-ordinate 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. 236- '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. 237- Constructive Res judicata 237-- 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 the claim petition u/s 166 of the Act? - Held- Yes. F.A. No. 264 of 2005 dated 15/02/2013, Minor Siddharth Makranbhai. 238- 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. 239- 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. 240- 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 788 241- Employee insured under the ESI Scheme- Whether claim petition under the M.V. Act or W.C. Act is maintainable?- Held- No. 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 242- 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. 243- Apportionment of inter se liability- whether tribunal was justified in apportioning the liability between the joint tortfeasor?- Held- No. 2013 CJ 926 & 976 245- 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. 246- Tractor-trailer – Tractor-trolley- 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. 247- Route permit – Breach of policy- When there is breach of policy, IC is not liable to pay amount of compensation. 2013 ACJ 1008. 248- 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. 249- Negligence- Conviction in the criminal Court- whether findings of the Criminal Court is binding on the Claims Tribunal- Held- No. 2013 ACJ 1042. 250- 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. 251- 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

252- 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. 253- O-6 R-17 – 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. 254- LMV- whether tractor is light motor vehicle? - Held- yes, as defined u/s 2(21) of the Act. 2013 ACJ 1160 255- 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) 256- 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) 257- 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) 258- 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) 259- Contributory Negligent- Non possession of driving licence- whether falls under it? -Held – No – it is not a case of contributory negligence.- difference between contributory and composite negligence pointed out. 2013 ACJ 1297 (Pat). 260- 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) 261 – Negligence- While reversing the vehicle- Guideline. 2013 ACJ 1357 (Chh) 262 – 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 judicatra? - Held- No. 2013 ACJ 1361 (Raj) 263- 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). 264- Death of the owner of the jeep- in such case, IC is not liable to pay compensation. 2013 ACJ 1382. (Del) 265- powers to take additional evidence- when can be allowed- Guideline. 2013 ACJ 1399 (P&H) 266- 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. Rajesh v/s Rajinder Singh - 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC – FB). 267 – Mediclaim – when certain amount is paid under the mediclaim policy, claimant can claim the said amount the claim petition. - Held- No. 2013 ACJ 1437 (Mad) 268- 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 (Relied upon Ajay Kumar v/s Raj Kumar) 269- Whether a claim petition preferred u/s 163A of the Act is maintainable when person ridding a motor cycle borrowed it from the its owner- Held- No. 2013 ACJ 1472- SC Judgments in the cases of Sadanand Mukhi, Ningamma and Rajni Devi followed. 270- Death of Agriculturist- Determination of compensation- Guideline given. 2013 ACJ 1481 271- 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. 272- 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 273- 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 274- 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) 275- Unmanned level crossing- accident by Train- whether Rail authority is liable to pay compensation- Held- Yes. 2013 ACJ 1653.