If you are using a company provided vehicle during the course of performance of company duties,the grievous injury sustained by you, not attributable to any negligence on your part, should be duly compensated by the company.Apart from free medical treatment,you are entitled to compensation as per relevant provisions of Employee's Compensation Act.
From India, Bokaro
45From India, Bokaro
Without referring to the merits of the queriest, I thought it relevant to quote the extracts of the decisions referring to law pertaining to injuries through accident sustained by an employee in vehicle provided by employer. However, the claim of compensation is also admissible under WC Act, ESI Act, where those enactments are applicable.
What is the usual common law principle based on the law of tort. The liability of the owner of the car to compensate the victim in a car accident due to the negligent driving of his servant is based on the law of tort and before the master could be made liable it is necessary to prove that the servant was acting during the course of his employment and that he was negligent. The Apex Court held that the concept of owner’s liability without any negligence is opposed to the basic principles of law. The mere fact that a person died or a party received an injury arising out of the use of a vehicle in a public place cannot justify fastening liability on the owner:
a) In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, the Apex Court held that the compensation awardable under Section 92-A of the MV Act was without proof of any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle or any other person which was clearly a departure from the usual common law principle that a claimant should establish negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle before claiming any compensation for the death or permanent disablement caused on account of a motor vehicle accident.
b) Supreme Court of India
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
“Before we refer to the provisions contained in Sections 163A and 166 of the 1988 Act, it is of some relevance to notice the background in which the Parliament considered it necessary to bring in the provisions of no fault liability on the statute. It so happened that in Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr. , a three-Judge Bench of this Court while considering the question whether the fact of injury resulting from the accident involving the use of a vehicle on the public road is the basis of a liability and that it is not necessary to prove any negligence on the part of the driver, held that the liability of the owner of the car to compensate the victim in a car accident due to the negligent driving of his servant is based on the law of tort and before the master could be made liable it is necessary to prove that the servant was acting during the course of his employment and that he was negligent. This Court held that the concept of owner’s liability without any negligence is opposed to the basic principles of law. The mere fact that a person died or a party received an injury arising out of the use of a vehicle in a public place cannot justify fastening liability on the owner….. This Court said “…. that proof of negligence is necessary before the owner or the insurance company could be held to be liable for the payment of compensation in a motor accident claim case”.
In an article entitled “NO FAULT LIABILITY UNDER MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988” on law-projects.blogspot.com/.../no-fault-liability-under-motor-vehicle.html, it is summarised:
“The chapter X(section 144) of the motor vehicles act , 1988 (section 146 and section 177) recognizes liability without fault in certain cases .section(144) provides that in the case of death of victim , a fixed sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand ) section (142 ) , and in the case of his permanent disability a fixed sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rs Twenty Five thousand ) can be claimed as compensation section (140) even if the owner or the vehicles is not at fault section (140) . It follows that the defense of contributory negligence or any other defence is also not allowed when the fixed sum of amount is claimed under this section (144) . This section therefore attaches strict liability of the owner or on their behalf of the insurance company . However , if the claim exceeds the aforesaid fixed sum of amount , then the plaintiff has to establish fault on the part of the owner of the vehicle under section 140 of the act (146) and (177) .The excess of amount claimed under section (141) shall be in addition to the fixed sum amount paid under section (140) after making adjustment section (140). Apart from that ,payment of solatium in cases of hit and run accidents has been established by the central government in those cases where the person died or was grievously hurt section (142) and the identity of the vehicle involved cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts section(140) . The payment of compensation payable out of such solatium fund will be Rs. 25,000 in case of death and Rs. 12,500 in case of grevious hurt section(140) . It may be added that the provisions of the motor vehicle act shall also apply in relation to any claim for compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person under the workmen’s compensation act 1923 resulting from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (144) of section 140 and for this purpose , the said provisions shall , with necessary modification be deemed to from part of that act (144) . Similarly compensation for death is also payable by of carrier of air under the carriage by AIR Act “
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
What is the usual common law principle based on the law of tort. The liability of the owner of the car to compensate the victim in a car accident due to the negligent driving of his servant is based on the law of tort and before the master could be made liable it is necessary to prove that the servant was acting during the course of his employment and that he was negligent. The Apex Court held that the concept of owner’s liability without any negligence is opposed to the basic principles of law. The mere fact that a person died or a party received an injury arising out of the use of a vehicle in a public place cannot justify fastening liability on the owner:
a) In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, the Apex Court held that the compensation awardable under Section 92-A of the MV Act was without proof of any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle or any other person which was clearly a departure from the usual common law principle that a claimant should establish negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle before claiming any compensation for the death or permanent disablement caused on account of a motor vehicle accident.
b) Supreme Court of India
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
“Before we refer to the provisions contained in Sections 163A and 166 of the 1988 Act, it is of some relevance to notice the background in which the Parliament considered it necessary to bring in the provisions of no fault liability on the statute. It so happened that in Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr. , a three-Judge Bench of this Court while considering the question whether the fact of injury resulting from the accident involving the use of a vehicle on the public road is the basis of a liability and that it is not necessary to prove any negligence on the part of the driver, held that the liability of the owner of the car to compensate the victim in a car accident due to the negligent driving of his servant is based on the law of tort and before the master could be made liable it is necessary to prove that the servant was acting during the course of his employment and that he was negligent. This Court held that the concept of owner’s liability without any negligence is opposed to the basic principles of law. The mere fact that a person died or a party received an injury arising out of the use of a vehicle in a public place cannot justify fastening liability on the owner….. This Court said “…. that proof of negligence is necessary before the owner or the insurance company could be held to be liable for the payment of compensation in a motor accident claim case”.
In an article entitled “NO FAULT LIABILITY UNDER MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988” on law-projects.blogspot.com/.../no-fault-liability-under-motor-vehicle.html, it is summarised:
“The chapter X(section 144) of the motor vehicles act , 1988 (section 146 and section 177) recognizes liability without fault in certain cases .section(144) provides that in the case of death of victim , a fixed sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand ) section (142 ) , and in the case of his permanent disability a fixed sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rs Twenty Five thousand ) can be claimed as compensation section (140) even if the owner or the vehicles is not at fault section (140) . It follows that the defense of contributory negligence or any other defence is also not allowed when the fixed sum of amount is claimed under this section (144) . This section therefore attaches strict liability of the owner or on their behalf of the insurance company . However , if the claim exceeds the aforesaid fixed sum of amount , then the plaintiff has to establish fault on the part of the owner of the vehicle under section 140 of the act (146) and (177) .The excess of amount claimed under section (141) shall be in addition to the fixed sum amount paid under section (140) after making adjustment section (140). Apart from that ,payment of solatium in cases of hit and run accidents has been established by the central government in those cases where the person died or was grievously hurt section (142) and the identity of the vehicle involved cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts section(140) . The payment of compensation payable out of such solatium fund will be Rs. 25,000 in case of death and Rs. 12,500 in case of grevious hurt section(140) . It may be added that the provisions of the motor vehicle act shall also apply in relation to any claim for compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person under the workmen’s compensation act 1923 resulting from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (144) of section 140 and for this purpose , the said provisions shall , with necessary modification be deemed to from part of that act (144) . Similarly compensation for death is also payable by of carrier of air under the carriage by AIR Act “
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
To add,
I was driver a car, alone on a busy road, when I stopped the car for the vehicles ahead of mine moves further, my car was hit by a private bus and this bus hit by another pvt.lorry. Due to the sudden impact of hit to my car from behind my car was pushed to the right and my car hit the divider, car's door opened, I fell unconscious inside my car. People around that place took me to the nearby hospital and was given first aid and later I was shifted to another specialty hospital and was saved except with a broken femur which was refixed with modern surgical procedures. I was out of action for a couple of months and regained my strength to the extent of 90-95%. In the meantime, police filed FIR, claims were made against the owners & insurance companies of those bus and lorry (unfortunately my car's insurance just expired, in fact I was proceeding to the insurance co. only on that fateful day for renewal as I have to physically show the car to insurance co. as there was a break. Friends I wish all of you should take care of valid insurance cover for your vehicles, don't compromise under any circumstances. Also Mr.Nitin Katkari estimated atleast 40% of vehicles on road has no valid insurance cover, this does not include mine as I never default on this ever since thereafter). After prolonged proceedings in the courts, I was compensated adequately by the courts, which included compensation towards losses for leave availed, cost of medical treatment and certain amount of token interest. My documents were very adequate to qualify for an award in my favour. I felt it's reasonable and it's more or less adequate. This is my own experience. Going by this, obtaining favourable orders for claim of compensation, medical cost is not that difficult, may be you can cut short the delay in settlement by using fast track courts and/or Lok Adalats etc. to speed up the settlement. But the question remains would the compensation received/to be received really bring back/compensate totally the lost health conditions in us. Sometimes one gets saved miraculously on other occasions escaped fatality with major losses. Even I was also on official duty in other city (can be easily argued as 'in the course of employment'). My co. though did not compensate for the loss but reimbursed the cost of treatment and granted special leave. But cases like the query is slightly different. Even here also compensation is sure but how about the injury sustained and loss of health conditions ? should settle for compensation only ??
From India, Bangalore
I was driver a car, alone on a busy road, when I stopped the car for the vehicles ahead of mine moves further, my car was hit by a private bus and this bus hit by another pvt.lorry. Due to the sudden impact of hit to my car from behind my car was pushed to the right and my car hit the divider, car's door opened, I fell unconscious inside my car. People around that place took me to the nearby hospital and was given first aid and later I was shifted to another specialty hospital and was saved except with a broken femur which was refixed with modern surgical procedures. I was out of action for a couple of months and regained my strength to the extent of 90-95%. In the meantime, police filed FIR, claims were made against the owners & insurance companies of those bus and lorry (unfortunately my car's insurance just expired, in fact I was proceeding to the insurance co. only on that fateful day for renewal as I have to physically show the car to insurance co. as there was a break. Friends I wish all of you should take care of valid insurance cover for your vehicles, don't compromise under any circumstances. Also Mr.Nitin Katkari estimated atleast 40% of vehicles on road has no valid insurance cover, this does not include mine as I never default on this ever since thereafter). After prolonged proceedings in the courts, I was compensated adequately by the courts, which included compensation towards losses for leave availed, cost of medical treatment and certain amount of token interest. My documents were very adequate to qualify for an award in my favour. I felt it's reasonable and it's more or less adequate. This is my own experience. Going by this, obtaining favourable orders for claim of compensation, medical cost is not that difficult, may be you can cut short the delay in settlement by using fast track courts and/or Lok Adalats etc. to speed up the settlement. But the question remains would the compensation received/to be received really bring back/compensate totally the lost health conditions in us. Sometimes one gets saved miraculously on other occasions escaped fatality with major losses. Even I was also on official duty in other city (can be easily argued as 'in the course of employment'). My co. though did not compensate for the loss but reimbursed the cost of treatment and granted special leave. But cases like the query is slightly different. Even here also compensation is sure but how about the injury sustained and loss of health conditions ? should settle for compensation only ??
From India, Bangalore
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Construction Accident.zip
Accident report1.doc
IS 3786 ACCIDENT CLASSIFICATION. pdf