TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms vicarious liability in road accident compensation case, stresses need for no-fault liability legislation and timely justice.</h1> <h3>N.K.V. BROS (P) LTD. Versus. M. KARUMAI AMMAL AND ORS. ETC.</h3> N.K.V. BROS (P) LTD. Versus. M. KARUMAI AMMAL AND ORS. ETC. - 1980 AIR 1354, 1980 SCR (3) 101, 1980 SCC (3) 457 Issues:1. Liability of the petitioner for compensation in a road accident case.2. Consideration of criminal case acquittal in civil suit for compensation.3. Quantum of compensation and dismissal of cross-claims.4. Judicial approach towards road accidents, liability, and compensation.5. Need for no-fault liability legislation and timely disposal of accident cases.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision holding the petitioner vicariously liable to pay compensation for a road accident where a stage carriage hit a high tension wire, resulting in casualties. Despite the driver's acquittal in a criminal case, the court found the driver's rashness and negligence to be the cause of the accident, leading to the petitioner's liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The court rejected the argument that the civil suit for compensation should follow the acquittal in the criminal case, emphasizing the difference in the standards of culpable rashness under the law of tort and negligence under criminal law. The court affirmed the High Court's decision to hold the petitioner liable for compensation based on the evidence presented before the Accidents Claims Tribunal.3. The High Court moderately fixed the quantum of compensation, which the Supreme Court found reasonable. Despite a potential case for enhancement, the court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision on compensation. Additionally, the cross-claims were dismissed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court upheld this dismissal as well.4. The Supreme Court highlighted the prevalence of road accidents in the country, particularly involving truck and bus drivers operating at night. The court emphasized the need for courts to infer culpability from circumstances in cases of road accidents to ensure that innocent victims receive compensation and negligent drivers and owners are held accountable. The court criticized judicial laxity that allows transport operators to escape liability and called for no-fault liability legislation to address the issue effectively.5. The court expressed concern over the delay in the disposal of accident cases, leading to postponed compensation for victims. The court urged states to appoint an adequate number of tribunals and High Courts to ensure quick disposal of cases to prevent further trauma and injustice for victims. The court dismissed the petitioner's plea under Article 136 of the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of considering human suffering in cases involving operational negligence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
