Kerala HC lays down ‘twin terms’ to seek compensation in plea alleging driver negligence in road accidents

In this week’s review of the Court’s Judgments, we look at the Kerala High Court’s observation regarding the need to fulfill the requirements for claiming accident compensation, the Karnataka High Court’s Judgment regarding Stridhan, Allahabad High Court observation on the right to proper education and Rajasthan High Court order to provide alimony to a wife who suffered cruelty from her husband.

Kerala HC: Sets ‘twin conditions’ for seeking compensation in plea alleging driver negligence

A Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court Constituent, Judge A. Badharudeen ruled that a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act must fulfill a dual condition, i.e. to say that claimants must not only prove negligence on the part of the driver or operator, but also prove that the person alleged to have suffered injuries died as a result of those injuries.

The judge said the onus is on the petitioners to provide evidence to respond to the allegations they have raised. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v V.Babu & Ors, a woman allegedly suffered an accident and died of her injuries while traveling on a motorbike driven by her brother.

Her husband and two sons filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in court alleging the accident was the result of the brother’s negligence. They claimed compensation from the owner, the driver and the insurer of the motorcycle.

The appellant in this case, that is to say the insurer, denied the accident and the negligence imputed to the driver, that is to say the brother who also died. The insurer further pointed out that the police did not register a case until 3 months later, based on the husband’s private complaint to the magistrate.

The argument was that the deceased died of natural causes and there was no autopsy certificate or inquest.

The court found the driver negligent based on the statements of the husband and the doctor who treated the deceased and awarded compensation to the claimants. This was challenged in the High Court by the insurer.

In the High Court, the appellant’s argument was that it was wrong to consider that the deceased had died from the injuries sustained in the accident and added that there was no evidence of negligence. from the driver.

It was also pointed out that the final report on the crime indicates that the investigator concluded that all allegations were false. It was also argued that the husband’s testimony cannot be relied upon since he is not a witness to the event.

Respondents to the case argued that although no case was filed immediately after the accident, the death was due to injuries from the accident according to the injury certificate.

The court noted that the respondents failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver. Although the FIR states that the brother’s careless and reckless driving caused the accident, according to the final report, these allegations were false.

The judge pointed out that in the claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, proof of negligence is mandatory. In the event of death, there must also be proof that the death was due to the injuries caused by the accident.

Although the injury certificate refers to the injuries from the accident, there is no autopsy report concluding that the death was due to the injuries.

The court found that there was no evidence to justify the two conditions and proceeded to overturn the court’s decision.

Karnataka HC: Stridhan cannot be restrained by husband’s family in marriage annulment

In Ganesh Prasad Hegde & Others vs Surekha Shetty case, the Karnataka High Court said that in case of marriage annulment, the husband’s family cannot keep the items worn by the wife in the marital home, c ie Stridhan.

In the case presided over by a single judge bench of Judge M Nagaprasanna, the petitioner and his parents challenged the order of March 31, 2015, in which the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Bangalore rejected the petitioners’ request for discharge of the proceedings initiated by his ex-wife, for offenses punishable under article 406 of the CPI.

The petitioner maintained that there was nothing more to pay to the respondent, i.e. the ex-wife, because it had been agreed for the divorce that permanent alimony should be paid in full and final settlement of the annulment of the marriage.

The Bombay High Court in an appeal from the family court had made it clear that the marriage between the two had been dissolved and permanent maintenance of Rs.4 lakhs had been paid. The request for maintenance was still open and cannot be part of article 406 of the CPI, that is to say relating to the breach of trust.

However, the respondent argued that the permanent alimony of Rs. 4 lakhs did not contain the amount paid before the marriage. And that the applicants cannot keep the Stridhan after the divorce, which was awarded twice – Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 5,000,000.

She alleged it amounted to a criminal breach of trust for not returning the money, despite posting a notice. The court went through the relevant documents and details of the case and noted that the annulment of the marriage took place during the settlement of Rs. 4,000,000. The court also noted that Rs. 9 lakhs was paid in 1998 as Stridhan when respondent was given in marriage.

He said there was no mention of the Stridhan in the divorce proceedings and the settlement, which was limited to Rs.4 lakhs in child support. However, this does not imply that all the objects that the respondent took to the marital home can be kept by the husband’s family.

The court dismissed the motion.

Allahabad HC: Receiving adequate education is a fundamental right under Article 21A of the Constitution of India

The bench consisting of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court observed that receiving adequate education is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

According to the details of the case, Tanishk Srivastava, an 8e The student of the class appeared for the entrance test held on March 20, 2022, to be admitted as a Resident Scholar at La Martiniere College, Lucknow for admission to Class VIII.

The student was declared successful and eligible for admission according to the results declared on March 25, 2022. However, due to the illness of his mother and the absence of his father, he could not be admitted in as resident researcher.

His father has applied to the school management to allow his son to be admitted as a day school instead, as he is willing to complete all the formalities required including fees.

Having received no confirmation of admission until April 18, 2022, the father filed a motion for an order in court. This was rejected by a single judge. This was contested by an instant appeal to the division bench.

The division bench upheld the order made by the single judge, as the institution was an unassisted minority private institution and therefore the written petition against it cannot be granted by the court. She relied on an earlier case from 2016, Management Committee, La Martiniere College, Lucknow and Anr Vs. Vatsal Gupta and others.

However, the court observed that the institution should have communicated the information on the admission status to the parents at the earliest so that appropriate action could be taken.

He added that it could have helped the student gain admission into any other institution as receiving proper education is a basic right enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution of India. Although the request was dismissed, the court observed that grievances relating to admission to an institution must be settled expeditiously.

High Court of Rajasthan: Leaving the marital home due to husband’s cruelty, not desertion.

In the case, Richa Dharu vs. Hemant Panwar, the High Court of Rajasthan observed that if a woman remains aloof due to the cruelty of her husband, it cannot be termed as desertion. He added that the unfavorable circumstances created by the husband could only repel the wife.

The wife filed a petition with the court stating that the respondent i.e. the husband is working as a branch manager in Bank of Baroda earning Rs 90,000 per month. She further stated that the trial court denied monthly child support on the grounds that the divorce had been cleared between them. According to her, the divorce was the ex-parte demanded by the husband.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the definition of “woman” includes a woman who has been divorced or obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. Therefore, she is entitled to alimony. The council also said it was a voluntary desertion by both parties and it was established that the marriage had been derailed due to the cruelty of the husband. The petitioner requested monthly maintenance of Rs 30,000.

The High Court observed that the Family Court erred in denying maintenance to the wife. It is observed that a lady suffering from cruelty cannot be considered as having abandoned her husband.

Judge Pushpendra Singh Bhati directed the monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the applicant by the respondent husband.

In fact

About the author