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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more