When the vehicle was taken on road before paying the full insurance and committed accident - the financier holds no liability as the borrower took the vehicle from the Dealer before payment of full insurance - 2015 S.C.(2014) msklawreports

M.V.Act - sec.146 - Owner definition - Hypothecation agreement - Hire purchase agreement -the Motor Cycle  belonging  to  2nd  respondent  and driven by the respondent No.3 herein, in a rash and negligent manner  dashed against the scooter as a consequence of which she sustained  a  fracture  in

the right  hand  superacondylar  fracture  and  humerus  bone  fracture  and certain other injuries. -she filed claim petition - Tribunal awarded compensation directing to pay compensation jointly and severally - the  stand  and  stance  put forth by the predecessor-in-interest the appellant bank  that  it  had  only advanced a loan and the hypothecation agreement was  executed  on  1.11.2002 by it.   As per the terms of the agreement, the owner  of  the  vehicle  was responsible to insure the vehicle at his own costs.  Reliance was placed  on Clause 16 and 17 of the loan agreement which stipulated that  the  bank  was required to get the vehicle insured if the borrower failed to  or  neglected to get the vehicle insured.  The   accident  as  stated  earlier  had  taken place on 20.12.2002 and the vehicle was insured by the owner  on  16.1.2003. It was further put forth by the bank that  the  owner  deposited  Rs.6,444/- with the dealer of the motor cycle i.e. Patwa Abhikaran Pvt.  Ltd.,  whereas
it was required to pay  Rs.9,444/-.   Despite  the  same,  he  obtained  the possession of the vehicle on the same day itself which was not  permissible. - High court dismissed the appeal of the Bank on this point - Apex court held that Section 146 of the Act that no person shall  use  or  cause  or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle  in  a  public  place  without insurance as that is the mandatory  statutory  requirement  under  the  1988 Act.-  "owner"  means  a  person  in  whose  name  a  motor  vehicle  stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian  of  such  minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of  a  hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement  of  hypothecation,  the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement." - He  had taken the vehicle from the dealer without paying the  full  premium  to  the insurance company and thereby getting the vehicle insured.-The person who is in possession of the  vehicle, and not the financer being the owner would be liable to pay damages for  the
motor accident. -there is evidence on record that the respondent no.2, without the insurance  plied
the vehicle in violation of the statutory  provision  contained  in  Section 146 of the 1988 Act, the High Court could not have mulcted the liability  on the financier.  The appreciation by the  learned  Single  Judge  in  appeal, both in fact and law, is wholly unsustainable. In view of the aforesaid premises, we allow the appeals and  hold  that  the liability to satisfy the award is that of the owner, the  respondent  no.  2 herein and not that of the  financier  and  accordingly  that  part  of  the
direction in the award is set aside.   However, as has been conceded  to  by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, no steps shall  be  taken  for realisation of the amount.  There shall be no order as to costs. -2015 S.C.(2014) msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more