• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17

Liability Without Fault

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Liability Without Fault (Sections 140 ? 144) Submitted to: Submitted by: Ms. Harman Shergill Yashika Sharma 9th Semester Section - B 109/08 Table of Contents Table of Cases Introduction Necessity of the principle Section 140 Requirements of this section: Scope and Applicability of the Section. Filing of a petition under Section 166 is not a condition precedent for grant of interim compensation. Permanent Disablement. No fault liability is cast on owner and not directly on insurer. Liability of insurer. Quantum of Compensation. Scope of enquiry. Negligence of owner or driver need not be proved. Section 141 Section 142 Section 143 Section 144 Bibliography Table of Cases Babban Tiwari v. Usha Ranjan Chakraborty Bishan Devi v. Siraksh Singh Baatchigari Subba Rao v. A. Amarnath Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi Dorakonda Venkatrama Seeshachalapathi v.Vijaywada Coop. Central Bank Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahemdabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai Hans Raj v. Charanjit Jawa Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Garji Devi Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. Aiysa Bibi K. Nanda Kumar v. Managing Director , Thantal Periyar Transport Corporation Lakhan Singh Niranjan v. Ramkesh Mahendra Prasad Mishra v. Mohd. Sabbir Mahila Ramdevi v. Nand Kumar Manjusri Raha v. B.L. Gupta Mohemmed v. Devassia Motor Owners? Vehicles Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavi Modi M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surja Ram Nabeesa v. M.A.C.T National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Jethu Ram National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sasilatha New India Assurance Company Limited v. Tumu Gureva Reddy Payelbhen Jayeshbhai Yagnik v. Jayeshbhai J. Yagnik Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ram Kumar Ram Kisho Mishra v. Brij Sharma Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More Sodhi v. Chander Vikas United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maganlal Hirabhai Patil United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suggu Venkata Raju Waman v. M.P. Section R.T.C Introduction The question of moving from ?fault liability? to ?no fault liability? has assumed a great necessity and is the need of the hour. ...read more.


In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Tumu Gureva Reddy a landmark judgment was given by the tribunal which held that in a claim under Section 140, the following facts have to be proved[14]: That a vehicle was involved in the accident. That the victim received injuries in the accident causing his death or a permanent disability. That the vehicle was insured with the insurance company under Chapter XI of the Act. That the claim was made against the owner or the driver of the vehicle including the insurance company with whom the policy was obtained and that the policy was in operation on the date of the accident. A tanker filled with motor spirit, toppled and fell in a land adjacent to the road and the driver ran away from the scene leaving the tanker unattended, in a highly dangerous position. The passers-by were ignorant of what had happened there and the injured claimants as also the deceased went to the spot to know as to what was happening there and suddenly there was fire in the tanker due to its bursting and the entire area was engulfed in fire and about 70 persons died and 35 persons sustained injuries. It was held that owing to the wide meaning of the term ?arising out of the use of vehicle?[15], the accident in the present case could be said to have arisen out of the use of motor vehicle. III. Filing of a petition under Section 166 is not a condition precedent for grant of interim compensation: Filing of petition under Section 166 for compensation is not a condition precedent for making an application under this section based on ?no-fault liability?. The dismissal of a petition for compensation under Section 166 on the ground of limitation only cannot stop operation of Section 140 which is based on ?no-fault liability?[16]. Chapter X of the Act is an independent provision and the tribunal is bound to decide the claim application filed under Section ...read more.


25,000[41]. Where evidence discloses that the left ring finger of the appellant was permanently disabled and his little finger suffered partial disability. It is a case of permanent disability under this section and compensation of Rs. 7,500 is awarded with interest[42]. 143. Applicability of Chapter to certain claims under Act 8 of 1923. The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply in relation to any claim for compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 resulting from an accident of the nature referred to in sub- section (1) of section 140 and for this purpose, the said provisions shall, with necessary modifications, be deemed to form part of that Act. Section 143 lays down that the provisions of this section shall also apply in relation to any claims under Workmen?s Compensation Act. Where the employer only comes under the Workmen?s Compensation Act, there is no liability under this act. The Workmen?s Compensation Commissioner could pass an award against the insurer to the extent of no fault liability. Chapter X of the Act is an independent provision and the tribunal is bound to decide the claim application filed under Section 140 of the act for grant of interim compensation not withstanding the claimant having filed any other application under Section 166 or under any other provisions of the Act and the legislature have made it clear under the said section[43]. 144. Overriding effect. The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force. This section provides for overriding effect of this Chapter over any other provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force. The legislative intention manifested through Section 144 of the new Act is that the provision in Chapter X should get predominance over all other laws. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Vicarious Liability.

    Course of Employment Smith v Stages [1989] S and M were instructed by their employer to do a week's work in a distant part of the country. They were paid travelling expenses, and for travelling time.

  2. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002].

    The typing conditions meet all reasonable standards, but it is negligent for the employer to have set the top-twisting task without providing a top-twisting strain-relief tool. If V develops repetitive strain disorder and experts cannot say whether the reasonable typing or the negligent twisting more probably caused this then will the "McGhee principle" apply?

  1. A clear difference can be defined when determining what general tortious liability is compared ...

    When looking at independent contractors, an employer that hired them is never considered to be vicariously liable. An independent contractor is an accessory to the employers company rather than integrated in it. However even though a employer is never vicariously liable for the contractors torts, there are situations in

  2. Tort Law Problem Case. The Plaintiff (widow of the deceased) namely Mrs Fogg is ...

    in the objective test26 it make sense of reasonableness that SimpleFlight.com Ltd providing such services are appropriate air travel in terms of domestic and brief flights, Nettleship v Watson 197127. The vicarious factor for informing the victim in inter alia can be understood by Morris v West Hartlepool Steam 195128.

  1. `The negligence formula is unfair to claimants as it places too many obstacles in ...

    of the defendant.1 Within this essay, I will examine some of the obstacles faced by claimants as a result of the current fault-based system, as well as consider whether an alternative system of redress will prove more effective for claimants seeking compensation.

  2. Employers liability

    The court held that both drivers were equally liable (50% each), when applying the 'but for test'. In Naomi Gamble's case, both the electrician and the ambulance service may be found liable for the damages. The thin-skull rule also applies in this case, which states that 'you take your victim as you find them'.

  1. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 137, Liability for Psychiatric Illness[1] made radical changes ...

    Considering that one might be suffering from more than one psychiatric illness, the law recognises this as can be seen that even though 'simple' grief is not compensable, 'pathological' grief can be and is a recognised psychiatric injury. The matters above got approval from arbitrators in the Herald of Free

  2. McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above ...

    If the term was extended as proposed to cover those who provide assistance in the aftermath, then the difficulties would arise in distinguishing such a person from a mere bystander.[34] However, Lord Griffiths holds another point of view, believing that a distinction could easily be established on the facts of

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work