![]() Other judgements where the courts have held that a person who is not the owner of the vehicle becomes a 'third-party', were also referred.Īlso Read: Bengaluru auto drivers slam government as transport department begins crackdown The court had then ruled that the deaths were 'due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle', and therefore it came under Section 163A, Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act. ![]() Sanjay S Katageri, advocate for the victim's family, pointed out the 2003 case of Sulochana vs KSRTC in which a banyan tree had fallen on a bus on the road resulting in the death of three people. Challenging the award of compensation, the company claimed in the HC that the accident is because of a branch of eucalyptus tree falling on him and it was not an accident 'arising out of the use of motor vehicle'. ![]() Shamrao Patil, 44, died in an accident while he was riding a motorcycle on Salpewadi-Gargoti road in Kolhapur district of Maharashtra.Īlso Read: 'Be honest': Karnataka HC tells BBMP which claimed only 221 potholes in BengaluruĪ branch of a eucalyptus tree fell on his head which resulted in his death. ![]() The appeal was filed in the HC later that year and the judgement came recently. The accident happened on July 2, 2006, and the lower court judgement was delivered in February 2011. The judgement by Justice H P Sandesh came in an appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company, which had approached the HC against the order of a lower court that had awarded compensation of Rs 3.62 lakh to the family members of a motor vehicle accident victim. The Karnataka High Court has held that the death of a motorist from a falling tree branch is still an accident 'arising out of the use of motor vehicle', and therefore the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |