Search Results for "no-fault liability"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findi...
High Court of Bombay at Bombay Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Acc...
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Ac...
High Court of Karnataka Allows EPF Organisation's Writ Petition for Priority Pay...

Search Results for "no-fault liability"

19 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 19 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Under Section 163A MV Act — No Fault Liability Principle Precludes Defence of Victim's Negligence. The Court held that the defence of wrongful act or neglect of the victim is not available in proceedings under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the provision is a complete code based on no fault liability.

6 Feb 2014

The appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 15th June 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai in M.A.C.P. No. 2554 of 1995. Th...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Bus Owner in Motor Accident Claim — Owner Held Liable for Compensation Due to Invalid Permit and Route Violation. Concurrent findings of fact that vehicle was plied without valid permit and on unauthorized route upheld; no interference warranted.

9 Dec 2022

The appeal arose from a motor accident claim where the deceased, a 24-year-old Managing Director of a company, died in a collision with a bus owned by...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim for Permanent Disability and Loss of Earning Capacity. Compensation Enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 3,00,000 Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for Severe Injuries Sustained by Rider of Luna Moped.

13 Dec 2017

The appellant, Kishor Thaokar, filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehic...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Process Issued Against Petitioners in Maharashtra Fire Prevention Act Case — Lack of Sanction Under Section 36 Renders Complaint Invalid. Court held that prior sanction of the Commissioner is mandatory for prosecution under Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(4) r/w 36 of the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2006, and its absence vitiates the criminal proceedings.

6 May 2013

The petitioners, seven residents of Jolly Maker I Cooperative Housing Society in Mumbai, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution o...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim, Holds Owner and Insurer Vicariously Liable for Driver's Negligence Despite Breach of Instructions. The court ruled that carrying excess passengers does not absolve the owner of vicarious liability when the driver was acting in the course of employment under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

14 Jan 2019

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed by the claimants, Malanbai and Vanita, challenging the judgment of the Claims...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Part Reducing Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Due to Wrong Multiplier. Multiplier of 13 applied instead of 20 based on age of claimants, reducing award from Rs.2,73,000 to Rs.1,74,000.

25 Jun 2012

The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the owner of the truck against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribuna...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim, Upholds Compensation for Deceased Motorcyclist. No Contributory Negligence Found as Maruti Car Driver Was Solely Negligent, and Compensation Based on Income Tax Returns and Multiplier of 10 Was Proper.

24 Jul 2013

The case arises from a motor accident on 7th August 1994, when Rajendra, the deceased, was riding a Hero Honda motorcycle and was hit by a Maruti car ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Company's Challenge to SAFEMA Forfeiture Order for Property Linked to Narcotics Trafficking. Burden of Proof Under Section 7 SAFEMA Not Discharged by Claimant.

24 Dec 2013

The petitioner, Imperial Exim (India) Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 31 March 2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Restores Compensation in Motor Accident Claim — Bus Driver's Negligence Established by Preponderance of Probabilities. Non-examination of Pillion Rider Not Fatal to Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

14 Feb 2019

The case arises from a motor accident on 28 October 2011, when Sitaram, a senior government school teacher, was riding a motorcycle with a pillion rid...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Insurer Fails to Prove Non-Involvement of Vehicle. The court upheld the compensation awarded to the family of the deceased, holding that the insurer did not discharge its burden of proving that the insured Maruti car was not involved in the accident.

25 Jul 2017

The case arises from a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the widow, children, and parents of Sanjay Ganorkar, ...

1 2

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)