Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) decisions on Negligence

17
4075
negligence driving, motor accidents claims

Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) decisions on Negligence

Here are a few Important Decisions by regarding Motor Accident Claims. Use the comments section to add your own list so that all benefit from it.

NEGLIGENCE:

2005

 Negligence- Absence of bedge with the driver. Bedge is meant for identity of the driver and its absence will not contribute to the negligence. New India Ass. Co. Ltd. v. Bhimavarapu Prathap & Ors. I (2005) ACC 503.

 Head on collision between two vehicles cannot be without negligence of both the drivers. Agnaru Jaya Ramudu v. Mohammed Afzal Miya & anr. I (2005) ACC 553 A.P.

Negligence of various types – Contributory, composite negligence defined. Pillion rider cannot be attributed any sort of negligence and he is third party. Heer Singh & Ors. v. Jai Singh & Ors. I (2005) Acc 718 Rajasthan

2004:

Truck driver not appeared as Dw. Accident with scooter. Averse inference against the truck driver will be taken being more responsible being heavy vehicle. Chanda Devi v. Rajendra Singh, 3(2004) ACC 860 M.P.

 Child is not expected to have the road sense. He/she cannot be held liable for contributory negligence. Ganga Ram v. Mahip Narain Singh, 2(2004) ACC 551 All.

Negligence – Plea that to avoid the accident with bullallow the bus was diverted towards bitch not accepted as the buffallow can be seen from far distance. Mohd. Iqbal v. M.P. State Road Trans. Corp., 2(2004) ACC 488 M.P.

 Negligence – Cyclist & Bus driver – The road is for the Bus if the cyclist is in the centre of line for bus he is contributory negligent. P. Varalakshmi Reddy v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corp., 2(2004) ACC 372. (Karnataka).

 Negligence – 3 persons on motorcycle – No proof of negligence of M/C Drive. Katta Bomman Transport Corp. Ltd. v. Vellai Duraichi, 2(2004) ACC 101 Mad.

 S. 304–A–IPC – Medical negligence – By quashing the complaint the opportunity to adduce evidence should not be snatched. Mohanan v. Prabha G. Nair, 2004(2) Crimes 152(SC): AIR 2004 SC 1719.

Busy road – It is not possible for the scooterist to take his scooter on extreme left of the road. Accident by bus. The bus driver is solely responsible for the accident. K. Jagannath Rai v. Gangarathana C. Bai, 2(2004) ACC 811 (Karnataka).

MACT – Negligence – without identity of driver also the negligence of driver can be proved. Shanti Swaroop Aggrawal v. U.P. State Road Transport Corp., 1(2004) ACC 179 All.

Contributory negligence & Composite negligence – Contribution of both parties in the accident attracts contributory negligence while composite negligence is joint negligence of two or more tortfeasor – independently causing ind. Damage to the victim. One of such tortfeasor can be held liable for the Act of all other too. Balwanti Devi v. Surjit Singh, 1(2004) ACC 698 Delhi.

2003:

Motor cyclist crossing the bus after getting the signal, from front an auto rickshaw dashed the motor cycle. Both the bus and the autorickshaw drivers are negligent. N.I. Co. Ltd. v. Ashen K. Chauhan, 3(2003) ACC 628 Jharkhand.

Act of God is no excuse. But if it is so unexpected that no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate the occurrence. Otherwise, the preventive action could be taken. The Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadeva Shetty, 3(2003) ACC 57 (SC): AIR 2003 SC 4172.

Tyre burst is no excuse of negligence. Pyar Chand v. H.P.R.J. CORP., 3(2003) ACC 763 HC.

Death of driver due to bad conditions of the road. Son died while driving the car of the father. Awarded Rs. 50,000/-. Jyanthi S. Shetty v. P. Shivji Shetty, 3(2003) ACC 586 (Karnataka).

Jhatka and jerk from pressure of tyre filled with air is possible by striking with some thing only. Ram Layak Ram v. Umrawati Devi, 3(2003) ACC 578 Patna.

Negligence – Composite negligence – Bus and tampto as vehicles – accident on the central line tampo came in the center in an attempt to cross the motor cycle. Bus driver and tempto driver negligent to the extent of 75% and 25% B.S. Chandrappa v. Kumari Shobha, 3(2003) ACC 688 (Karnataka).

Contributory negligence – Injuries to passenger travelling on the foot board of the bus. To establish the contributory negligence the warning to him, the possibility of not crowded bus and other such circumstances have to be established. Munianjappa v. Managing Director Karnataka State Road Transport Corp., 3(2003) ACC 688 (Karnataka).

Absence of helmet adds in the assessment of the negligence by two wheeler driver. S.N. Prakash v. Raju Shankara Lal Goel, 3(2003) ACC 243 (Karnataka).

 Passenger on top of the roof of the bus – fell down and died. Driver negligent to the extent of 50%. Mayamma v. Siddaiah, 3(2003) ACC 253 (Karnataka).

 Violation of the traffic regulations by the deceased contributes  to the negligence. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer, 3(2003) ACC 551 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 4182.

 Passenger in the bus took the head and mouth out of the window for vomiting. Truck coming from the opposite direction struck against the injured. The driver is negligent and not the bus drive. Basanti Bai v. Kailashdas, 3(2003) ACC 442 M.P.

 Negligence – Helmet – State Govt. cannot make the rules to remove the helmet. M.V. Act. Ss. 128 and 129 are mandatory in nature. Dr. C.S. Subha Rao v. Sec. To Govt. of A.P., 2(2003) ACC 292 A.P.

 Negligence – Vehicle dashed against a tree. Now more evidence required to prove the negligence. Smt. Tarabai v. Rahul Trading & Finance Co., 2(2003) ACC 288 M.P.

 Negligence – After the accident the bus was not much away from the spot of the accident. It indicates the slow driving of the slow driving of the bus at the time of accident. Divisional Manager Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp. v. Zaheera Begum, 2(2003) ACC 263: 1(1995) ACC 677.

 Negligence – Act of God explained. No excuse of every unexpected incident. Divisional Controller KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, 2003 SCC (CRI.) 722: 1(1998) ACC 419 H.P.: 1(1994) ACC 593 Mad.

Negligence – Stopping the bus just below the electric wire from the passengers to lead the bundles on the roof of the bus is negligence of the driver. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shubhu Bai, 2(2003) ACC 237 All.

 Negligence of the victim of the accident. Insurer liable for the award even in such case. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarant Singh, 2003(3) L.J.R. 826(SC).

 Negligence – Investigation’s report is opinion and evidence. National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Roshni Devi, 1(2003) ACC 561 (P&H).

 Negligence – Accident can occur by one vehicle alone and it can occur due to the negligence of the driver or otherwise. Smt. Jaibunbi v. Smt. Kamal, 1(2003) ACC 484 Bomb.

 Negligence – speed of the vehicle – By direct hit of the offending vehicle, the scooterist fly over bonnet of car. The speed of car was presumed to be high. Bhakhra Beas Management Board v. Mahender Pal, 1(2003) ACC 412(P&H).

 Negligence – Travelling on the roof of the Cabin of the truck/Bus or on the foot board. The death. Deceased contributed to the negligence to the extent of 50%. Murli Mania Jaiswal v. Rajesh Vishwakarma, 1(2003) ACC 162 jharkhand; Div. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjukta Malik, 1(2001) ACC 67 Orissa.

 Entitled to compensation and insurer liable – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Darapapaiah, 1(2000) ACC 373 (Karnataka).

 Deceased though not contributed in the accident but contributed in death. 2(1995) ACC 66, 359.

 Negligence of the doctor – Patient entitled to receive the skilled treatment when brought to the hospital. He can be referred to some other hospital if full facilities are not available in the hospital but cannot be put on death bad for negligence of the doctors. Poonam Sharma v. U.O.I., 1(2003) ACC 19 Delhi DB.

 Negligence – negligence attributed to the injured Pw. Also supported the case of the injured attributing negligence to the driver. Driver was negligent and not the contributory negligence of both. Suresh Yallappa Patil v. G.M. KSRTC, 2003 SCC (Cri.) 49: AIR 2003 SC 85.

 2002:

Contributory negligence – If the offending vehicle comes in the lane of the lane of the vehicle coming from opposite side and causes the accident, the plea that the victim could have avoided the accident by taking his own vehicle on extreme left side of the road and hence, is contributory negligent, is not maintainable. Pramod Kumar Rasik Bhai jahaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1355: AIR 2002 SC 2864.

 Identity of the dead body – Not there at the time of inquest preparation and the story of occurrence falsified by medical evidence acquitted. Pritam Nath v. State of Punjab, JT 2002(5) (SC) 563: 2002(3) RCR (Cri.) 857: AIR 2002 SC 2846: 2002 Cri.L.j. 3772.

Negligence – Due to panic of negligent driving of lorry bus, the pillion rider of the scooterist fell down. The negligence is attributed of the driver of the lorry. N.A. Gangamma v. K.S. Yakub, 2(2002) ACC 190 (Karnataka).

2001:

 M.V. Act – Restart of bus without observing whether the passengers have alighted/boarded or not. Both the driver and the conductor are negligent. Pallavan Transport Corporation v. M. Jagannathen, JT 2001 (2) (SC) 619.

 MACT – No negligence of driver, no liability of insurer Oriental Fire & General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Parkash Devi, 2(2001) ACC 41 Jharkand.

 No benefit to the driver’s heirs. 2(1995) ACC 484: 2(1993) ACC 443, 444.

 Negligence – The accident proved but how it occurred not proved. The burden is on the non-applicants to rule out their negligence. Jaswinder Kaur v. S. Richpal Singh, 2(2001) ACC 57 M.P.

 Negligence – Lengthy skid marks on the road indicate that the vehicle was on high speed. Karam Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2(2001) ACC 198 H.P.: 2(1997) ACC 124: 1(1995) ACC 677.

2000:

 Contributory negligence – The driver’s version that he saw through the mirror that the hand of the victim was outside the window is falsified by the sitting position of the victim from where the victim’s hand is cannot be visible through the mirror. Prasath v. Subramania Pillai, 1(2000) ACC 101 Mad.

 For carrying excess passengers than the permits limit the police cannot detain the vehicle. State of Maharashtra v. Nanded Parbhani, 2000(1) Crimes 174 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 725.

 Criminal trial – Acquittal in crl. Case is no ground to dismiss the claim petition. Pillathal v. R.S. Ganeshan, 2(2000) ACC 265 Mad; Chhotu Lal v. Chamali Bai, 2(1998) ACC 284.

 Direct hit of the bus on the motor cycle. The eye witnesses support the negligence of the bus driver. Believed the eye witnesses. State of Haryana v. K.L. Pasricha, 1(2000) ACC 354 Delhi.

 S. 304 – A IPC Passenger fell while boarding. The negligence of the driver has to be proved with specific allegations and details. Mohammad Aynuddin v. State of A.P., 2(2000) ACC 360 (SC): 2000(3) RCR (Cri.) 619: 2000 Cri.L.J. 3508: AIR 2000 SC 2511.

 To get the benefit of Mechanical defect the driver must prove that he had taken reasonable care by checking and getting proper service etc to avoid the mechanical failure and inspite of such care the said failure happened. Siva Shan Mahan v. The Govt. of Tamil Nadir, 1(2000) ACC 406 Mad.; M.U. Thruway v. Periabamy, 2(2000) ACC 501 Mad.

 Poor tyres – driver negligent. 1(1996) ACC 441: 2(1995) ACC 11: 2(1984) ACC 168.

 Negligence/liability of insurance – Travelling by the loaded trolley of the tractor or on the mudguard. Insurer is not liable. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mattedu Manikyan, 2(2000) ACC 681 H.C.

1999:

S. 185 – M.V. Act Challan for drunken driving. To say a person alcohol the percentage of alcohol in the blood should be minimum 30% Rajavalse M. v. State, 1999(2) Crime 69 (Karnataka). :  1(1999) ACC 218 (Karnataka).

  Negligence and compensation – Death of the driver due to his own negligence – Deserved compensation. (Supreme Court case law followed.) Smt. S. Vimala v. Chikkahanumanthaiah Bin Laxmanappa, 2(1999) ACC 104 (Karnataka).

 Contributory negligence for crushing the pedestrian crossing road from point other than designated ones. Ratio of negligence given to be 20: 80 being the bus a larger vehicle. Anna Transport Corp. Ltd. v. Mohammad Farooq, 2(1999) ACC 233 (Karnataka).

 Uphilling and downhilling – preference to whom? The uphilling traffic is to be given the precedence. Bimlesh v. HPRTC, 1999 SCC (Cri.) 241.

 Negligence or contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the child of tender age. Talasila Sandhya v. APSRTC, 2(1999) ACC 258 A.P. : 2(1997) ACC 104 : 2(1996) ACC 362 : 1(1985) ACC 497.

 Negligence – Parked of the vehicle in the hill region without putting some hurdle under its wheel. On its slipping down the negligence will be counted to be that of the driver. Samotiya v. Harbans, 2(1999) ACC 357 M.P.

 Even if the identity of the driver is not established, the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable. Pr. Land Development Bank v. Mangal Chan and Co., 2(1999) ACC 411 (P&H).

 Contributory negligence – Deceased traveling while standing on the foot board of the bus, death due to fall, death due to fall, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to him. Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corp. v. Rajapandian, 2(1999) ACC 503 Mad.

1998:

 

Negligence – If even after seeing the cyclist from 50 yards, coming from the opposite direction the bus dashed against him the driver is negligent. 1(1998) ACC 19.

Negligence – In the process of boarding the bus if the other partner did not climb the bus and the co-partner jumped from the running bus without any indication, the driver of the bus cannot be held negligent. 1(1998) ACC 50 HP.

 Road side parking of the vehicle. All precautions have to be proved by the evidence of the river. 1(1998) ACC 266 (Karnataka). : 2(1993) ACC 326.

 Negligence – If on the wife road there is head on collision between two vehicles each drive will be 50% negligent. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushila Bai, 2(1998) ACC 362 M.P.

 Parking light of vehicle during the night – The driver must keep the parking lights/indicators on. 2(1996) ACC 112: 2(1998) ACC 508 M.P.: 1(1997) ACC 581.

 Negligence – Unauthorised 3 persons on motor cycle met in accident with the truck. Contributory negligence in the ratio 30% of the motor cyclist and 70% of the truck driver. Ved Kumar v. Kishan Lal, 2(1998) ACC 724.

1997:

 No one can get the benefit of his own negligence. 2(1997) ACC 201.

 Drive of the heavy vehicle cannot always be held negligent. 2(1997) ACC 687 Guj.

________________________________________________

ADS. BY GOOGLE


________________________________________________

 1996:

 Negligence – accident due to bomb blast in the bus – driver and owner cannot be held liable for compensation. 1(1996) ACC 14.

In fog the vision is poor but sound can be heard. 1(1996) ACC 77.

 Accident from opposite direction – The damage portions of the vehicle can indicate which one vehicle had struck in the front portion and thus more negligent. 2(1996) Acc 186.

 Negligence – The drive of the heavy vehicle has to be more careful. 1(1996 ACC 254: 1996 SCC (Cri.) 223: 1(1996) ACC 522.


1995:

 Additional evidence is permissible by way of order 41 rule, 27 of C.P.C. even in appeal in the interest of justice. 1(1995) ACC 266: 1(1995) ACC 311 Kerala.

 Admission of his guilt by the driver before the criminal court. It is admissible before the MACT 2(1995) ACC 500: 2(1995) ACC 643.

 A truck cannot cross the turning in fast speed. 1(1995) ACC 334.

 Negligence – To rebute the negligence the driver must be examined in defence. 1(1995) ACC 206, 437: 1(1993) ACC 460.

1993:

Accident due to fog – the negligence cannot be specified in such situation. 1(1993) ACC 507.

Negligence – Accident while taking he back turn of stationery vehicle – Negligence of driver. 2(1993) ACC 148.

At the time of the accident, the elbow of the passenger was projecting out of the window – No contributory negligence can be attributed to the passenger. 2(1992) ACC 158.

High Court – LPA lies against the decision of single judge 1991 (1) ACC 148.

Not proper parking – standing on the road. Negligence of the driver. 1(1990) ACC 114.

Contributory negligence – Possibility of avoiding the accident makes the driver liable for negligence. 1(1986) ACC 14.

Identity of drive of the offending vehicle need not be proved. 1990(1) ACC 479: 2(1988) ACC 254, 156: 2(1987) ACC 479: 2(1986) ACC 386: 2(1985) ACC 243.

T – Junction – It is the duty of the driver of the vehicle coming from side lane to slow down his vehicle and then to have the safe entry on the main road. 2(1986) ACC 381.

Accident due to slippery road beside the precautions taken by the driver. The drive cannot be held negligent. 2(1986) ACC 393.

Any decision that you have , which are not listed above. Please use the comments section to post them. This will be a comprehensive list .

17 COMMENTS

  1. Please, provide me some case laws of Hon’ble Supreme court that, ” In case of death of a driver in a motor vehicle accident accident a claim case can be filed in any of the forum of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or Labour Court.”

  2. My friend while driving his bike with pillion rider, met with an accident 12 yrs back. he was drunk and till now he is not recovered from the illness of that accident. the advocate who filed the case in MACT says he will not get anything. They are not at all informed of the development of his case. Kindly advise. Will he get any compensation?. the vehicle was carrying insurance also.

  3. For getting a compensation under the MACT, the claimant has to prove negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. If negligence is not proved and it turns out that it was in-fact the claimant who was at default, then the MACT does not allows the claim.

  4. a two wheeler was booked in my brother’s name and the same was given to his friend as he was not getting loan for two wheeler in his name so in my brothers’s name he took loan and two wheeler but all the documents were in my brother name only later the said friend gave vehicle to another friend for a ride who didn’t have DL for two wheeler but had DL for 4 wheeler now will the liability will be on my brother as he is the owner of the vehicle

  5. mera sala pichale sal may month me highway road par truck accident ho gaya aur vo 3 days ke bad uski deth ho gaye,uske bad hamne vakil kiya kort me case chal rahi hai par ek sal bith jane par bhi help nahi mili,aur accident karnewala abhi tak usko panishment nahi meli,please aap muje aap bataeye accident claim kab milenga.

  6. so happy and like this information about judicial law and decisions, especially I am also a Claim Advocate on M.A.C.T., So if in the middle of the time some Citations and decision if be sent to my mail address, I be very happy and law will useful for me

  7. HI MY NAME IS HIREN.
    LAST YEAR ON 29/11/2013 AT AHMEDABAD
    I MET AN ACCIDENT WITH A MOTOR CYCLE DRIVER.
    I WAS DRIVING CAR OF MY FRIEND.
    I HAVE DRIVING LICENSE.
    BUT THE PERSON WHOM MY CAR WENT TO CLASH.
    HE DIED AFTER 3 MONTHS.
    I HAVE DRIVING LICENSE FOR 4 WHEELERS.
    HIS FAMILY CLAIMED A SUM AMOUMT OF 51 LACS.
    AS I AM FROM VERY MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY.
    ITS BEEN 1 YEAR.I HAVE GONE COURT FOR 3 MUDDAT.
    THE FAMILY PERSON OF THAT PERSON WHO DIED ARE NOT COMING.
    I SURRENDER TO POLICE WITHIN 1 HOUR.
    AS I WAS UNABLE TO HELP THE PERSON ON SPOT AS I WAS SCARED
    DUE TO THAT PUBLIC ON THE ROAD

    HOW COULD THIS CAN BE RESOLVED EASILY AS THAT IT IS AFFECTING MY CAREER

  8. I want some supreme court, high court or any court’s case law on driving two wheeler by a drunken person and died in an accident in which he was not found ti be negligent……. Please help me

  9. in an accident involving a polo car and a bolero, the bolero after hitting the polo banged my honda city car (WHICH WAS STATIONARY) and the bolero fell on its side.this happened inside a colony on a colony road because of the rash and negligent driving of the bolero. maximum damage has been caused to my car.
    CAN I HAVE YOUR HELP & ADVISE ON WHAT TO DO.

  10. my name is harshil last year of 7.11.2013 I was met accident case of my bike.and 55 year old woman died. her son clamed amont 5 lks. ihave no insurance. so what I do. go for compromise or go through court.

  11. I am defending insurance companies in MACT cases. In one case a person aged 50 years while going on a scooter hit the road divider and sustained multiple injuries and head injury. He simply stated to the doctor at the time of joining him that while he was going on his scooter, he fell and down and sustained the injuries. He was there in the hospital for 24 days. He was conscious and coherent on several days in the hospital but the hospital authorities did not inform the police and his statement was recorded only after 22 days by the police when the complaint was lodged on the same day. Hence there is delay of 22 days for recording the statement of the injured by the police and the scene of offence panchanama was conducted at about 10.30 P.M. in the night and that too within half an hour after recording his statement. In fact the police station is situated about 3 kilometres away from the hospital and there are corrections of the date and time of the accident in the scene of offence panchanama. Further injured person was in coma from 23rd day and died after 24 days in the hospital.In fact the accused vehicle was also not involved in the accident. there is collusion between the owner, driver and the LRs of the deceased who filed the Petition.

    I would like to know if there are any caselaws on delay in lodging the complaint under the MV Act where the case is not maintainable against the Insurance company. I would be grateful if you can kindly help me in this case by giving the citations for getting the clasim petition dismissed.

  12. I am defending insurance companies in MACT cases. In one case a person aged 50 years while going on a scooter hit the road divider and sustained multiple injuries and head injury. He simply stated to the doctor at the time of joining him that while he was going on his scooter, he fell and down and sustained the injuries. He was there in the hospital for 24 days. He was conscious and coherent on several days in the hospital but the hospital authorities did not inform the police and his statement was recorded only after 22 days by the police when the complaint was lodged on the same day. Hence there is delay of 22 days for recording the statement of the injured by the police and the scene of offence panchanama was conducted at about 10.30 P.M. in the night and that too within half an hour after recording his statement. In fact the police station is situated about 3 kilometres away from the hospital and there are corrections of the date and time of the accident in the scene of offence panchanama. Further injured person was in coma from 23rd day and died after 24 days in the hospital.In fact the accused vehicle was also not involved in the accident. there is collusion between the owner, driver and the LRs of the deceased who filed the Petition.

    I would like to know if there are any caselaws on delay in lodging the complaint under the MV Act where the case is not maintainable against the Insurance company. I would be grateful if you can kindly help me in this case by giving the citations for getting the claim petition dismissed.

  13. I was having I20 top hand model fully loaded top hand model. My uncle met with an accident and he was not having his seat belt.. No air bags were opened in his car… In which he died on spot.. While purchasing the car the company told to us that there is no need to wear seat belt… It is an additional feature.. We have proof also of the salesman of the company giving these information … Can the case be filed against the company for these?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.