Judgments - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
MOHAR SAI AND ANR :Versus: GAYATRI DEVI AND ORS.
BHARTIBEN NAYABHA KER AND ORS VERSUS SIDABHA PETHABHA MANKE AND ORS
SHIVAWWA AND ANR. Versus THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.
COMPAQ INTERNATIONAL & ANR. Versus BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
SINGH RAM VERSUS NIRMALA AND ORS
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus AJAY KUMAR MOHANTY & ANR.
Puspraj Singh Baghel Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down - Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 raises a statutory presumption that if the certificate of registration is valid, the transport vehicle is presumed to be in use or kept for use. The same cannot be disputed only for the reason that in absence of fitness certificate, the owner of the vehicle is absolved to pay the tax under the said Adhiniyam. Followed: Division Bench judgment dated 03.10.2017 rendered in W.P. No.14557/2017 Full Judgment
National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors
THE UNION OF INDIA VS SAYEDA FATEMA BIBI & ORS.
Amit Kumar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited And Another
Rajesh Kumar Miglani & Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being the Central Legislation does not contemplate grant of fitness certificate and it is left to be framed by the State Government, therefore, the issue of fitness certificate and payment of tax falls within the legislative competence of the State in terms of Section 65(2)(d) of the Act of 1988 and under Section 3 of the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991. Thus, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 48 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, Full Judgment
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey and others
If tractor insured for agricultural purpose was being used for other purpose, this is breach of terms and condition of Insurance Policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Full Judgment