Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 — Appeals against awards of the Claims Tribunal

4,283 judgments in LawgicHub's archive cite Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Judgments citing Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

T.Dattatri vs Kamle Santhosh & United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 13 February, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana13 Feb 2023
Case Name: T.Dattatri vs Kamle Santhosh & United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 13 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 13 February, 2023 Bench: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Discrepancy in Vehicle Number & Fraudulent Claim Key Legal Propositions 1. Discrepancy in vehicle number mentioned in FIR/charge sheet and insurance policy is a valid ground for dismissing a claim petition. 2. Submission of a disability certificate when no disability was claimed in the petition raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the claim. 3. Courts are justified in dismissing claims where discrepancies and potentially fraudulent evidence are presented. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from the dismissal of a claim petition (OP No. 198 of 2005) by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Adilabad. The claimant, T. Dattatri, sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 18.09.2004, alleging rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal dismissed the claim due to discrepancies in the auto number provided and the evidence presented. Held: A. On Issue of Discrepancy in Vehicle Number:
L. Manemma & Anr. vs. K. Mohan Reddy & Anr. on 09 June, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Jun 2023
Case Name: L. Manemma & Anr. vs. K. Mohan Reddy & Anr. on 09 June, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 09 June, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Quantum of Compensation – Admissibility of Salary Certificate – Examination of Issuing Authority. Key Legal Propositions 1. The authenticity of a salary certificate (Ex.A4) submitted as evidence of the deceased’s income, requires examination of the issuing authority or drawing officer, particularly when no specific proof of monthly salary exists. 2. An objection to a document’s admissibility must be raised at the time of its introduction; a belated objection is not tenable. 3. The Tribunal erred in not considering the salary certificate (Ex.A4) and instead relying on a notional income, leading to inadequate compensation. Judgment Summary Background: This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MACMA) arises from a claim for compensation following the death of L. Ramachandra Reddy in a road accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 1,34,500/-. The appellants (claimants) contend that the MACT failed to properly consider the dec
The APSRTC vs Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana on 17 March, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana17 Mar 2023
Case Name: The APSRTC vs Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana on 17 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 17 March, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Enhancement of Compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. Determination of appropriate monthly income of a claimant in motor accident claim cases, considering the nature of occupation. 2. Assessment of disability percentage based on medical evidence and its impact on the claimant’s ability to work. 3. Calculation of loss of future income considering age, future prospects, and applicable multiplier in motor accident claim cases. Judgment Summary Background: Two Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeals (MACMAs) arose from a common award dated 18.07.2011 in O.P. No. 2875 of 2008. MACMA No. 739 of 2012 was filed by the APSRTC challenging the award, while MACMA No. 444 of 2014 was filed by the claimant, Chelimela Kummari Satyanarayana, seeking enhancement of compensation. The claim petition stemmed from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Held: A. On Issue of Monthly Income: Majority View: The Court inclined to consider the claimant’s submitted m
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Vojjala Kumar on 09 February, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Feb 2023
Case Name: United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Vojjala Kumar on 09 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 09 February, 2023 Bench: Justice Pulla Karthik Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Compensation – Assessment of Loss of Earnings and Pain & Suffering. Key Legal Propositions 1. The assessment of loss of earnings based on a percentage of physical disability, coupled with the claimant’s income and an appropriate multiplier, is legally sound. 2. Awarding compensation for pain and suffering, considering the severity of injuries, multiple surgeries, and prolonged treatment, is justifiable. 3. The Tribunal’s decision to award compensation based on evidence and material on record, without any demonstrable error, warrants affirmation. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a Motor Accident Claims Petition (MACP) wherein the claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 19.11.2004. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- to the claimant. The Insurance Company, being the appellant, challenges the award, specifically contesting the assessment of loss of earnings and t
B. Venkat alias Venkateshwarulu vs Sri S. Raja Ramesh and The United India Insurance Company Limited on 06 July, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Jul 2023
Case Name: B. Venkat alias Venkateshwarulu vs Sri S. Raja Ramesh and The United India Insurance Company Limited on 06 July, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 06 July, 2023 Bench: Smt Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Key Legal Propositions 1. The extent of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) can be enhanced if found inadequate considering the nature of injuries, disability, and future medical expenses. 2. Evidence regarding the extent of injuries and disability must be substantiated and credible to be considered for compensation. 3. The court can consider the period of treatment and potential future medical expenses while determining the overall compensation amount. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a claim petition filed seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The claimant, B. Venkat, suffered a fracture of the patella and underwent surgery. The MACT awarded Rs. 32,500/- as compensation, which the claimant sought to enhance, arguing that the tribunal did not adequately consider his disability and future medical expens
Srigadi Shankaraiah vs A. Ramalinga Swamy & Ors on 10 November, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Nov 2023
Case Name: Srigadi Shankaraiah vs A. Ramalinga Swamy & Ors on 10 November, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 10 November, 2023 Bench: Smt Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Motor Accident Claim Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. Quantum of compensation in motor accident claims is subject to enhancement based on the nature of injuries, loss of earnings, and other consequential damages. 2. The claimant is entitled to compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, transportation charges, and extra nourishment resulting from the accident. 3. Interest on the enhanced compensation is payable from the date of filing the petition until realization of the amount. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a claim petition filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 14.04.2004. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 54,750/-. The appellant/claimant challenged the inadequate quantum of compensation, leading to this appeal. There was no dispute regarding the accident or the negligence of the driver. Held: A. On Quantum of Compensation: Majori
The A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad vs Shaik Nazeeruddin & another on 24 April, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana24 Apr 2023
Case Name: The A.P.S.R.T.C. vs Shaik Nazeeruddin & another on 24 April, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 24 April, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice M.G. Priyadarshini Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Key Legal Propositions 1. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, a claim of contributory negligence cannot be accepted. 2. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in an accident, considering the nature of injuries, age, avocation, and income, requires no interference unless demonstrably excessive. 3. Interest at 7.5% per annum on awarded compensation from the date of petition till realization is just and reasonable, as per Apex Court precedent. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a Motor Accident Claim Petition (M.V.O.P. No. 286 of 2015) wherein the claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident involving an APSRTC bus. The Tribunal partially allowed the claim, awarding Rs. 7,80,400/-. The APSRTC appealed, contesting the award and alleging contributory negligence on the part of the tractor trolley driver. Held: A. On Contributory Negligence: Majority View: The Court rejecte
Anjum Azra vs P. Purushotham Reddy and Others on 06 October, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Oct 2023
Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Absence of representation by the appellant leads to dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. 2. Repeated adjournments do not preclude the court from dismissing a case for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear. 3. The court has discretion to dismiss a case for non-prosecution when it assesses the appellant's lack of interest in pursuing litigation. Judgment Summary Background: This is a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MACMA) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an order dated 12.08.2004. The appellant, Anjum Azra, filed the appeal. The respondents are P. Purushotham Reddy, Janga Reddy, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Held: A. On Appeal for Non-Prosecution: Majority View: The Court dismissed the MACMA for non-prosecution due to the consistent absence of representation for the appellant, despite multiple adjournments and a listing under the caption 'for dismissal'. The Court concluded the appellant was not interested in pursuing the litigation. Dissenting View: None. B. On Pending Miscellaneous Applications: Majority View: All pending miscellaneous applicati
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Sarojamma on 07 July, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana7 Jul 2023
Case Name: The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Sarojamma on 07 July, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 07 July, 2023 Bench: Smt Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Liability of Insurance Company – Gratuitous Passengers vs. Labourers Key Legal Propositions 1. An insurance company is liable for compensation to injured labourers travelling in an accident vehicle owned by another, even if they are not formally listed as passengers. 2. The absence of evidence establishing passengers as gratuitous rather than labourers necessitates treating them as labourers for compensation purposes. 3. Reliance on precedents regarding gratuitous passengers is misplaced when the facts indicate the individuals were likely labourers engaged by the vehicle owner. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) granting compensation to the respondent/claimant for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant/insurance company contests the award, arguing that the claimant and others were gratuitous passengers and therefore not cover
M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs P.Karuna & Ors on 22 December, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana22 Dec 2023
Case Name: M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs P.Karuna & Ors on 22 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 22 December, 2023 Bench: P. Sam Koshy & Nagesh Bheemapaka, JJ. Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Quantum of Compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. The status of employment (probationer vs. regular) does not preclude consideration of future prospects in calculating compensation in death cases under the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. A letter of appointment indicating regular employment, even with a probationary period, is sufficient evidence to justify the application of a higher multiplier for future prospects. 3. The Tribunal’s assessment of income based on salary slips and appointment letters is generally not subject to interference unless demonstrably erroneous. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal is filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company against the award dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, in a death case (M.V.O.P.No.162 of 2008). The Tribunal awarded Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation with 7.5% per annum interest. The Insurance Company challenges the Tribun
Konne Bhoolaxmi vs MD.Yousuf on 09 June, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Jun 2023
Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Evidence regarding involvement of a vehicle in an accident requires corroboration and cannot be based on hearsay or inconsistent testimonies. 2. The testimony of an eyewitness must be credible and consistent, particularly regarding crucial details like vehicle identification. 3. A party alleging negligence has the burden to prove it with clear and cogent evidence. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from the dismissal of a claim petition (O.P. No. 150 of 2005) seeking compensation for the death of Konne Rajaiah in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants (appellants) alleged that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of a lorry owned by Respondent No. 1 and insured by Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding insufficient evidence of negligence and involvement of the lorry. Held: A. On Issue of Negligence and Involvement: Majority View: The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, finding that the appellants failed to establish the involvement of the lorry and the negligent driving of Respondent No. 1. The key eyewitness (Pw-2) provided inconsistent testimony, pa
Nalla Ailaiah & Ors. vs. The Managing Director, APSRTC & Anr. on 04 September, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana4 Sept 2023
Case Name: Nalla Ailaiah & Ors. vs. The Managing Director, APSRTC & Anr. on 04 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 04 September, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman Subject: Motor Accident Claims Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. Determination of contributory negligence requires evidence; mere presence on a motorcycle with multiple riders does not automatically establish it. 2. Compensation for loss of earnings should be calculated considering future prospects and applying an appropriate multiplier. 3. Compensation amounts awarded under conventional heads (funeral expenses, loss of estate, parental consortium) may be enhanced based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award concerning compensation for a deceased individual's family following a road accident involving a motorcycle and a bus. The appellants (claimants) challenged the MACT’s finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the quantum of compensation awarded, specifically regarding loss of earnings and conventional heads. The respondents are the
Sirikonda Sharada vs The National Insurance Company Limited on 22 August, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana22 Aug 2023
Case Name: Sirikonda Sharada vs The National Insurance Company Limited on 22 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 22 August, 2023 Bench: Single Judge – Justice M. Laxman Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident – Enhancement of Compensation – Determination of Income – Deductions – Future Prospects – Loss of Consortium Key Legal Propositions 1. The Tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while determining the monthly income of the deceased, particularly given his age and self-employment. A 25% increase should be applied to the actual salary for self-employed individuals above 40 years of age. 2. Deduction towards personal expenses should be reasonable, and the Tribunal’s determination must consider the number of dependents. 3. Compensation should include amounts towards funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of filial consortium, and parental consortium, as applicable. Judgment Summary Background: This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MACMA) challenges the order and decree dated 07.05.2007 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, in O.P. No. 715 of 2003. The appellants/claimants sought
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Cheekati Gattaiah on 13 June, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana13 Jun 2023
Case Name: National Insurance Co Ltd vs Cheekati Gattaiah on 13 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 13 June, 2023 Bench: Smt Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Appeal against award of compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. The validity of a driver’s license is a crucial factor in determining liability in motor vehicle accident claims. 2. Evidence presented must support the claims made by the Insurance Company. 3. Courts should not interfere with well-reasoned judgments of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal unless there is a demonstrable error. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Co Ltd against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar, granting compensation of Rs.1,11,300/- to the claimants for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Insurance Company contested the award primarily on the grounds that the driver of the jeep did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. Held: A. On Issue of Driver’s License Validity: Majority View: The Tribunal correctly held that the driver possessed a valid dri
T. Vikas vs B.Viswanatham and Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 11 August, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana11 Aug 2023
Case Name: T. Vikas vs B.Viswanatham and Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 11 August, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 11 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Enhancement of Award Key Legal Propositions 1. The extent of compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be enhanced if it is found to be inadequate considering the nature of injuries, future medical expenses, and loss of amenities. 2. Temporary loss of earnings should be calculated for a reasonable period, considering the nature of injury and recovery time. 3. Compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future medical expenses are distinct heads of damages and should be awarded independently. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award dated 26.04.2007. The appellant/claimant sought enhancement of the compensation amount, alleging that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider the nature of injuries (fracture and facial disfiguration), the requirement for future surgeries, loss of amenities, and loss of expectancy of life. The Insurance Company argued tha
National Insurance Company Limited vs Kudupuganti Rama on 05 September, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana5 Sept 2023
Case Name: National Insurance Company Limited vs Kudupuganti Rama on 05 September, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 05 September, 2023 Bench: P. Sam Koshy & Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, JJ. Subject: Motor Accident Claims Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. Assessment of contributory negligence is a question of fact, and the Tribunal’s finding will not be interfered with unless it is unreasonable or unsustainable. 2. Parking of vehicles on National Highways, particularly during odd hours, creates a risk of accidents. 3. An insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle to the extent of the assessed contributory negligence. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award quantifying compensation for a road accident. The appellant, National Insurance Company Limited, challenges the 50% contributory negligence attributed to the insured lorry and seeks a reduction in the compensation amount. The accident occurred when a DCM Van hit a lorry parked on National Highway 65 at 4:30 AM. Held: A. On Issue of Contributory Negligence: Majority View: The Court upheld the T
Syed Siraz @ Sirazuddin vs Palle Sahadev & Ors on 22 August, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana22 Aug 2023
Case Name: Syed Siraz @ Sirazuddin vs Palle Sahadev & Ors on 22 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 22 August, 2023 Bench: Justice M. Laxman Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident – Quantum of Compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. The Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income can be revised based on the claimant’s occupation and age, even if formal salary proof is absent. 2. Disability assessment is crucial for determining loss of earning capacity, and the Tribunal should consider the extent of physical impairment. 3. Compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities should adequately reflect the severity and long-term impact of the injuries. Judgment Summary Background: This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenges the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Karimnagar, in a claim arising from a motor vehicle accident. The appellant, the injured party, contends that the Tribunal inadequately assessed the loss of income due to disability and failed to provide sufficient compensation for non-pecuniary damages. Held: A. On Quantum of Compensation: Majority View: The Court enhanced the com
Yendla Pradeep vs Vince-nt Bql on 10 February, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Feb 2023
Case Name: Yendla Pradeep vs Vince-nt Bql on 10 February, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 10 February, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. Repeated absence of the appellant and their counsel despite multiple hearing dates leads to dismissal of the appeal. 3. Pending miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed upon dismissal of the main appeal. Judgment Summary Background: This is a Motor Accident Claim Appeal (MACMA) filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an order dated 02.07.2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad. The appellant, Yendla Pradeep, sought to challenge the Tribunal’s decision. Held: A. On Appeal Dismissal for Non-Prosecution: Majority View: The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the consistent absence of the appellant and their counsel during multiple hearing dates (19.11.2022, 30.12.2022, and 20.01.2023). Despite being listed under the caption 'For Dismissal', no representation was made. Dissenting
Varanasi Ashok vs Varanasi Anajaneyulu on 01 August, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana1 Aug 2023
Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. In motor accident cases involving death, the income of a deceased labourer cannot be assessed at a meager amount, and should reflect minimum wages prevalent in the area. 2. The appropriate multiplier for calculating future loss of dependency for a deceased aged 50 years is 13, as per precedents established by the Supreme Court. 3. While calculating compensation, a deduction of 1/3rd of the monthly income is permissible towards personal and living expenses, considering the number of dependents. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal order concerning compensation for the death of Varanasi Yadamma. The appellants, the deceased’s sons, challenged the Tribunal’s assessment of their mother’s income and the multiplier applied for calculating future loss of dependency. Held: A. On Assessment of Deceased’s Income: Majority View: The Court held that the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income at Rs. 2,100/- per month was meager, considering she worked as a labourer. The Court enhanced the income to Rs. 3,000/- per month, aligning it with minimum wage standa
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Ch.Sudheer Goud on 26 April, 2023
High Court of High Court for State of Telangana26 Apr 2023
Case Name: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Ch.Sudheer Goud on 26 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 26 April, 2023 Bench: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Enhancement of Compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. The quantum of compensation in motor accident claim cases should consider the potential income of the claimant, applying principles established in *Vishal & Ors. vs. Yugraj Singh Dhindsa & Ors.* and *B. Ramulamma vs. Venkatesh Bus Union & Anr.* 2. The impact of a severe injury, such as amputation, on the claimant’s future prospects, including marriage prospects, must be considered while determining compensation. 3. The Tribunal should grant reasonable compensation for attendant benefits, pain and suffering, and other consequential losses arising from the accident. Judgment Summary Background: These appeals arise from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award concerning a road accident on 16 October 1999. M.A.C.M.A. No. 535 of 2010 is filed by the Insurance Company against the award, while M.A.C.M.A. No. 591 of 2010 is filed by the claimant seeking enhanced compensation. The claimant

← All Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 sections Search all judgments →