Given below are some judgments related to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal MACT Jurisdiction
Death due to the collapse of the school building managed by the village education committee constituted by the Govt. State is liable to pay the compensation. Dharandhar Panda & anr. V. State of Orissa & Ors. 1(2005) ACC 333 Orissa
Bomb blast in the procession. Govt.’s duty to maintain law and a order and hence. The State is liable for granting the compensation. Ashwani Gupta v. Govt. of India & Ors. 1(2005) ACC 361 Delhi
Ads by Google
Bomb blast in the bus- Insurer liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Dutt Sharma 1(2005) ACC 473 J&K.
Accident- Murder is also an accident. U.I.I. Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Ummadi Shankunthala & Ors. 1(2005) ACC 112 A.P
Traveling in the bus – Suit case fell on the leg due to the sudden brakes. Fracture of the leg. It is accidental injury. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Arun Dutta, 3(2003) ACC 444 Gau.
Jurisdiction: Where there is involvement of the Motor Vehicle in the accident, the MACT has the jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. The subsequent finding that it was not the M.V. negligent but accident occurred due to some other reasons may be the negligence of the train. The jurisdiction of the MACT is not to be ousted. U.O.I. v. Bhagwati Prashad, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 694: JT 2002(3) (SC): AIR 2002 SC 1301.
If only the train is responsible for the accident between the bus and the train, the claim will lie before the Railway Tribunal only. G.M.N.F. Rly. Maligaon Guwalati. V. Jitendra Shah, JT 2000 (1) (SC) 189: AIR 2000 SC 3398.
Traffic Jam – Is illegal. High court of judicature at Allahabad v. State of U.P., 1(1999) CCR 552 HC.
Stationary Vehicle – employee workman of the vehicle was trying to tie the wet rope over the vehicle which got current due to striking with some electric wire passing over the vehicle and thus sustained injuries – The incident falls under the M.V. Act. 1(1996) ACC 24.
Damage caused by the electric lines due to the maintainability – For compensation the writ has to be filed. 1(1995) ACC 88.
Jurisdiction will be decided by the incident and not by the agreement made. 1(1995) ACC 201.
Damage to the goods to be transported. The place where the agreement was made and the places where such co. has sub branches have the jurisdiction to try the case. 1(19995) ACC 201.
Jurisdiction – Bus. & Train accident – After the matter is beyond the scope of both the tribunals the Civil Court is the competent Court to entertain the matter. 2(1993) ACC 174.
Jurisdiction – Cleaner of the vehicle gets injured due to the negligence of the driver of his own vehicle, matter will lie for claim in the jurisdiction of MACT. 1(1993) ACC 498.
Reverse – W.C. ct will be attracted and not the MACT.2 (1992) ACC 44; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. parveen & Ors. 2(1998) ACC 220.
MACT Jurisdiction – One cannot apply for compensation before both the agencies i.e. MACT and the W.C. Act The choice of one is that of the petitioner. 2(1992) ACC 677, 686.
Reverse – Can apply before both. 1(1996) ACC 577.
Explosion in bus/School bus – is covered by the jurisdiction of the MACT Samir Chanda v. M.D. Assam State Transport Corp, 2(1998) ACC 333 (SC): 2(1991) ACC 231: AIR 1999 SC 136.
Fire spread in the patrol which was already spread as a result of vehicle falling due to accident causing the loss of life. Covered by the MACT 1991(1) ACC 460: 2(1991) ACC 306 (SC).
Amendment of the Act is prospective in nature. 1990(1) ACC 282.