Tag Archives: #mvact

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay: Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 06 June 2023. In the case of ANSAR AHMAD S/O SHEIKH SATTAR AND 2 OTHERS Vs STATE OF MHA. THR. PSO GITTIKHADAN NAGPUR AND ANOTHER IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 708 OF 20 22 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 715 OF 2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE G. A. SANAP, the court addressed two writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-16, Nagpur, which dismissed the revision applications filed by the petitioners against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. The petitions involved the custody of seized animals in two separate cases involving the illegal transportation of animals in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

FACTS

The first writ petition (No. 708/2022) involved three petitioners claiming ownership of cattle seized from trucks on 10th March 2022. The prosecution alleged that the animals were transported inhumanely and subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering. The second writ petition (No. 715/2022) involved a single petitioner claiming ownership of cattle seized from a truck on 1st March 2022.

The petitioners, not being accused in the crimes, sought custody of the seized animals, arguing that they possessed valid trade licenses for the purchase and sale of animals. They claimed that the animals were intended for sale in another market and included milching buffaloes, which affected their income. The state opposed the applications, contending that interim custody should be retained by the registered Gaushala (animal shelter) mentioned in Section 35 of the Act of 1960.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

The court heard arguments from the learned advocates for the parties and examined the record and proceedings. The petitioners’ advocate argued that there was no prima facie evidence of cruelty towards the animals and that the animals’ custody should be given to the owners during the trial. The additional public prosecutor representing the state maintained that the offense had been established, and hence, the petitioners were not entitled to custody.

The advocate for respondent no.2, Maa Foundation, highlighted that they were registered with the Charity Commissioner and had the necessary facilities to care for the animals. They argued that the transportation of the animals had violated relevant rules, such as the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, and the Transport of Animals (Amendment) Rules, 2001. The advocate emphasized the Foundation’s commitment to the protection, care, and welfare of animals.

1. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: This law aims to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and promotes their welfare. It sets standards for the treatment and transportation of animals and prohibits cruelty towards them.
2. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This act governs the regulation of motor vehicles in India. While the specific provisions relevant to the case were not mentioned, it is likely that the act includes regulations regarding the transportation of animals in vehicles.
3. Transport of Animals Rules, 1978: These rules, made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, provide guidelines for the transportation of animals. They specify requirements for vehicles, including certification, provision of first-aid equipment, water, fodder, and limitations on the number of animals per vehicle.
4. Transport of Animals (Amendment) Rules, 2001: These rules amend the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, and introduce additional provisions to ensure the welfare of transported animals. They require a valid certificate from an authorized officer or Animal Welfare Organization for the transport of animals.
5. Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989: These rules, made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regulate the construction, equipment, and use of motor vehicles. While the specific provision mentioned in the blog, Rule 125E, was not elaborated upon, it likely contains requirements for vehicles transporting livestock, such as the provision of permanent partitions and restrictions on carrying other goods.

VIOLATION OF ANIMAL WELFARE RULES:

To assess the claim that the animals were not subjected to cruelty, the court examined relevant rules. It found that the transport of the animals had violated several provisions. Rules 47 to 50 and 56 of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, specify requirements for the transportation of animals. The vehicles used had not obtained a valid certificate from a qualified veterinary surgeon, and there were no provisions for first-aid equipment, water, or fodder. Additionally, Rule 56(c) limits the number of cattle per goods vehicle to six, which was exceeded in this case.

The court also considered Rule 96 of the Transport of Animals (Amendment) Rules, 2001, which required a valid certificate issued by an authorized officer or Animal Welfare Organization. This certificate was not obtained, further establishing non-compliance with animal welfare laws. Furthermore, the amended Rule 125E of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, stipulated specific requirements for vehicles transporting livestock, including the provision of permanent partitions and restrictions on carrying other goods.

JUDGMENT AND CONCLUSION:

Based on the violations of animal welfare rules and the prima facie evidence of cruelty, the court concluded that the animals should not be handed over to the petitioners during the pendency of the trial. The court emphasized that the registered Gaushala, respondent no.2, was well-equipped to provide.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

Click here to view judgment

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay: Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 06 June 2023. In the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR. DIVSNL MANAGER, NAGPUR Vs SURESH S/O SIDDHESHWAR BADWAIK, GONDIA and 2 OTRS IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1491 OF 2008 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE URMILA SACHIN JOSHI- PHALKE award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Gondia has come under scrutiny in an appeal filed by an insurance company. The case involves a compensation claim filed by the parents of the deceased, who lost his life in a motorcycle accident. The insurance company contests the liability for compensation, arguing that the deceased was not a third party but rather stepped into the shoes of the motorcycle owner. This article provides an overview of the case and analyzes the arguments presented by both parties.

FACTS:

The accident occurred on July 13, 2006, when the deceased, Prashant Badwaik, was riding a motorcycle near Marar Toli Railway Gate. To avoid a bicycle rider, he applied sudden brakes, causing the motorcycle to skid and resulting in severe head injuries. Despite receiving immediate medical attention, the deceased passed away during treatment.

The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, filed a compensation claim stating that their son was a skilled Electronic Mechanic earning Rs. 4,000 per month. They argued that since the accident occurred while riding a motorcycle owned by another individual and validly insured, they were entitled to compensation.

The insurance company, the first respondent in the case, contested the claim on the grounds that the accident was caused by the deceased’s own negligence. They argued that as the deceased had borrowed the vehicle, he should be considered the owner, and therefore, the claimants were not eligible for compensation.

The second respondent, the owner of the motorcycle, also denied liability and stated that the vehicle was adequately insured, shifting the responsibility to the insurance company.

LAW INVOLVED:

Section 147 of Motor Vehicle Act states that requirements of policies and limits of liability. —

(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which—

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)—

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily ²⁷ [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:

TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT

After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimants and awarded them compensation. The tribunal held that the deceased died in a vehicular accident involving a motorcycle owned by the second respondent and insured by the first respondent. The compensation amount was set at Rs. 3,69,500, along with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until the complete realization of the amount.

APPEAL BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY

Aggrieved by the tribunal’s decision, the insurance company filed an appeal, challenging the judgment and award. Their main contention was that the deceased, as the borrower of the motorcycle, should not be considered a third party and therefore not entitled to compensation. The insurance company argued that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not include the deceased under the definition of any person but rather as a tortfeasor.

Furthermore, the insurance company cited various judgments, including New India Assurance Co. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi and others (2009)2 SCC 417, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi and others (2008) 5 SCC 736, and Ramkhiladi and another Vs. The United India Insurance Co. and another (2020) 2 SCC 550, to support their claim that the liability of the insurance company is limited to the owner-driver and does not extend to other named individuals or borrowed vehicles.

COUNTER ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS

In response to the appeal, the claimants’ counsel argued that the compensation claim was since the accident involved the vehicle insured by the first respondent. They emphasized that the deceased was not the owner of the motorcycle but had borrowed it, making him eligible for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT AND CONCLUSION:

Upon reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, the court upheld the decision of the tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company. The court found that the deceased, who borrowed the motorcycle, could be considered a third party in relation to the insured vehicle. Therefore, the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

Click here to view judgment