The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which imposed a six-month limit for filing accident claims. Tribunals and High Courts have been directed not to reject petitions solely due to delay.
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether insurance companies must pay no-fault compensation under Section 163A of the MV Act for the vehicle owner’s death, even without a third-party claim. The case arose from a minor’s plea after losing her parents in a solo accident.
The Supreme Court criticized former Punjab & Haryana High Court judge Justice Rekha Mittal for significantly reducing motor accident compensation. It restored the original Rs.29 lakh compensation set by the MACT, questioning why she had slashed it to just Rs.3 lakh. The bench noted that Justice Mittal had a pattern of lowering compensation in such cases.
An Additional District Judge in Kerala has been suspended by the High Court Judges Committee following allegations of sexual assault by a court staff member. The committee stated that the incident damages the reputation of the judicial system. The suspension ensures a fair investigation into the matter. Authorities are committed to addressing such misconduct with strict action.
Yesterday, On 19th September, The Supreme Court ruled that passengers cannot bear vicarious liability for a driver’s contributory negligence, thus ensuring their full compensation. This decision arose from a case involving a parked truck that caused an accident, emphasizing that the truck’s abandonment and lack of safety measures were primarily responsible for the incident.
Today, On 7th August, The Supreme Court ruled that attempting to overtake a vehicle does not constitute rashness or negligence. The claimant, whose wife died in an accident while overtaking, was initially deemed partly at fault. However, the court increased the compensation, stating that the over-speeding tractor was driven rashly and negligently.