Public Service Vehicle – In case of passenger travelling in a Public Service Vehicle; negligence of driver or owner may not be required to be proved by him to maintain his claim; being covered under Section 147(1)(b)(ii).

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

An act of a driver dashing against a tree must mean that there had been a negligent act only on the part of the driver -- Instance where a driver could plead exoneration of such a responsibility shall be when there is a mechanical failure but there again the liability of the owner would still be exposed -- A vehicle is bound to be kept in a state of repair and if there was a mechanical defect that resulted in accident, it should still be seen as want of care by the owner that would make him liable and consequently, the insurer is liable for any claim arising out of the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Minimal requirement is that the death or injury is by the use of a motor vehicle – Death that as resulted is a typical illustration of a res ipsa loquitur situation and no further proof for negligence is necessary than merely statement of fact of death or injury -- This is not a claim by the driver or owner of the vehicle, which alone would be barred -- The claim is by a passenger in a case where there is a comprehensive insurance cover for risk to a passenger -- Owner of the vehicle held to be liable the same way as the driver is and this shall be channelled to the liability of the insurer as a person who is bound to indemnify the insured.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Conversion of petition from section 163-A to 166 of M.V. Act -- Accident indeed reflects a res ipsa loquitur situation when a person was not careful in his driving -- Fatal accidental fall and careful driving would be tautological -- Negligence of the motorcyclist as established and the case would be required to be examined under Section 166 of the Act itself, no matter that the petition is under Section 163-A of the Act -- Before conversion is made, all that has to be seen is whether any further evidence was necessary to consider a plea of negligence which might require to be proved u/s 166 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2014

Two wheeler fell down by the inability of the driver of the motor cycle to keep a proper balance and it must be taken as negligence of the driver.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2014