In two judgments last week, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that in road accidents, insurance companies should pay compensation under the ‘no-fault liability’ clause in the Motor Vehicles Act irrespective of the circumstances of the deaths. In one appeal, Indra Devi vs Bagada Ram, the death was invited by the negligence of the deceased driver himself. The Rajasthan HC asked the recipients of the compensation to return the amount with interest to New India Assurance Co as the claimants were not entitled to the amount. The SC set aside the high court order and asserted the ‘no-fault liability’ under Section 140 of the Act did not depend upon the conduct of the driver or the victim. In the second case, Eshwarappa vs CS Gurushanthappa, the drunk driver and his four friends died while rashly driving to a temple without informing the car owner. The accidents tribunal denied any compensation. However, the SC ruled even in such cases, ‘no-fault liability’ cannot be avoided.
Pre-deposit of half the loan must before hearing appeal
Banks are trustees of public funds and they have a duty to recover debts by adopting all legally permissible methods, the SC stated while setting aside the judgment of the Madras high court in the case, Indian Bank vs Blue Jaggers Estates Ltd. According to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, the debtor must deposit half the amount claimed to be due before the tribunal hears his appeal against sale of securities. In this case, the securities were sold for Rs 5 crore. The debtor argued since the amount recovered by the sale was more than half the dues, there was no need to deposit more for moving the appeal before the tribunal. The high court agreed. However, the SC allowed the appeal of the bank stating the amount recovered by the sale would not absolve the debtor from depositing 50 per cent of the claim, especially when the tribunal had not determined the exact amount due from the debtor.
Criminal case quashed
The SC has set aside the judgment of the Karnataka high court and quashed criminal cases against a former director of RPS Benefit Fund Ltd, a company which invited deposits from the public and failed to return the money (MAA Annamalai vs State of Karnataka). The company was wound up by the court, following which cheating cases were filed against the directors and the company by the depositors. The high court allowed the prosecution of the ex-director to go on, though he had pleaded that he had resigned before the winding up of the company. The SC quashed the high court order.
Labour court to decide on ‘worker’
The SC has overruled the Allahabad high court in the case, Triveni Engineering & Industries vs Jaswant Singh, and declared that the question whether a person was a worker should be decided by a labour court or industrial court and not by the labour commissioner. The employee was transferred to another unit, but he did not go, protesting that he could not be transferred under the standing orders. The company denied that he was its worker. The high court asked the labour commissioner to decide the issue. On appeal, the SC held that the high court order was wrong.
State to decide on trade unions
Deciding a dispute between two rival trade unions in Tata Memorial Hospital Centre for recognition, the SC has held that the state government was the appropriate authority under the Maharashtra Recognition of TUs and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act.
It overruled the Bombay high court which had held that the central government was the appropriate authority to take action in industrial disputes. The SC pointed out that the hospital and centre were independent of the central government, and therefore the state government was the proper authority.
Voltage stabilisers, electronic goods
The SC has held that voltage stabilisers are electronic items and therefore attracted lesser sales tax. Dismissing a batch of appeals from Uttar Pradesh, Commissioner of Trade Tax vs Parikh Gramodyog Sansthan, the court ruled that stabilisers are not electric goods. A voltage stabiliser might have many components some of which use electricity. That cannot be the sole reason for classifying it as an electrical item, the judgment said.
