Skip to main content

Compensation reduced for not wearing helmet

In an effort to make two-wheeler riders obey the compulsory helmet rule, the Madras High Court has reduced the compensation awarded to a victim of motor vehicle accident by Rs. 50,000 for contributory negligence on his part by not wearing a helmet.

A Division Bench of R. Sudhakar and S. Vaidyanathan made the rare order on a cross objection moved by the victim Mani Raj and an appeal moved by the National Insurance Company against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Fast Track Court No.I, Poonamallee dated November 17, 2011. The issue pertains to an accident in which Mani Raj was hit by a speeding car on Chitlapakkam main road on November 16, 2007. He was grievously injured in the accident and was bed-ridden, in a vegetative state till 2012.

 Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/hc-reduces-compensation-for-not-wearing-helmet/article8379171.ece

Comments

  1. Unknown3 April 2016 at 22:27

    not wearing a helmet is not a contributory negligence as observed by courts, and M V act not dealt hence a penalise as a traffic offence but insurance companies can't be exonerated from liability.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown3 April 2016 at 22:29

    not wearing a helmet is not a contributory negligence as observed by courts, and M V act not dealt hence a penalise as a traffic offence but insurance companies can't be exonerated from liability.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Somdutt Bose3 April 2016 at 23:12

    Contributory negligence, vicarious liabilities are difficult issues here as India is not too strong on tort laws. Liability of insurance companies stays but the compensation was reduced.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more