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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more