‘Govt buses must have 3rd-party insurance’

The maximum penalty for rash or drunken driving, as per Section 304A of IPC, seems inadequate at a time when road accidents are spiralling.

What can make the current laws appear even more is that the punishment is more often than not much lower than the maximum punishment of two years. To overcome this laxity in law, the Law Commission has decided to suggest an amendment to the Indian Penal Code in order to treat death caused by rash and negligent driving as a heinous offence, punishable with a maximum prison term of 10 years. The commission has also suggested that cameras be placed at strategic positions on major roads in every city so that the police can track down the offender. While the footage would make it difficult to tamper with evidence, the realisation of having been caught on the camera may deter drivers from running away after an accident and instead encourage to help the injured, if only to minimise his culpability. The Commission feels that hoardings are a major distraction for drivers and that speed breakers are major impediments in the smooth flow of traffic. It also believes that most accident deaths on city roads are because of overspeeding by contract carriages or state government buses.

“No city transport bus be allowed to ply without being fitted with speed governors,” it has recommended. Most buses plying in cities are not insured for accidents, resulting in long litigation by the kin of the deceased for compensation.

The Commission has, therefore, recommended that every corporation or government bus must be insured for third-party accident claims so that in case of a death due to rash and negligent driving, the kin of the deceased are not left to wage a long legal battle to claim compensation. The Commission feels lax policing is one of the main reasons for rash and negligent driving and has asked for constant drives against drunk driving. It has also recommended strict action, even seizure of vehicles using cooking gas (LPG) cylinders as a substitute for fuel. This would, however, not affect those vehicles plying with company-fitted LPG kits.

With thanks from The Times of India 11 June 2008 P. 17 Delhi

©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd

For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Can hotelier be a consumer? State, national panels differ

A hotel owner moved a district consumer forum in Delhi seeking Rs 15 lakh compensation against a water-proofing company alleging deficient services that resulted in huge seepage in rooms and resultant damage to the wood work.

The district forum rejected the petition saying the hotelier was running the premises for commercial purposes, hence, as per the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — the apex consumer body — he would not qualify as a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.

The state commission, entertaining the appeal by Gesture Hotels and Food Pvt Ltd, rapped the District Forum and said unless the services were availed or goods were purchased for further sale for earning profit, it would fall within the ambit of service under the consumer law. Appearing for Noida Water Proofing Company, which water-proofed certain rooms in the hotel, counsel Soumyajit Pani pointed out to the State Commission that holding a hotelier as a consumer would be contrary to the ruling given by the National Commission, whose verdicts were binding on all consumer fora.

Disregarding the argument, the State Commission said it was not bound by the National Commission’s views and that it was supposed to follow the rulings laid down only by the Supreme Court and the high courts.

“Even if any contrary view has been taken by the National Commission, by no stretch of imagination the same is binding on this (state) commission as these are the views and not the law laid down by the law laying authorities,” it said.

The Times of India 15th April 2008 Delhi P15
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

SC tells Tatas to replace car

The Supreme Court has directed Tata Motors Ltd to replace a defective car and pay Rs 3,000 as compensation to the customer. A bench headed by Justice B. N. Agarwal dismissed Tata Motors' petition and asked the company to replace the defective car as it created noise beyond the permissible limit. It also asked the company to pay Rs 3,000 to one Lachia Setty, who bought the Tata Indigo Lx car in February 2004 for Rs 5.58 lakh. The national consumer disputes commission had already ruled in favour of the customer. While challenging the decision of the national consumer disputes redressal commission Tata Motors said the mere allegation of noise without any material evidence cannot qualify to be a defect under the Consumer Protection Act, when the level of noise is in conformity with the prescribed limits. The Commission had upheld the decision of the Karnataka State Consumer Commission, which had ruled in favour of the buyer. Setty had earlier won the case in a district consumer forum, which held that Tata Motors failed to produce documents to refute the charges that the noise level of the vehicle was less than the permissible limit of 82 db( A) from a competent authority. It further stated that unless there was a defect in a new car, no person would come forward to surrender the vehicle within a short period of one or two months. Setty had moved the forum for refund of the money after the car had started making an unbearable noise due to a defect in its clutch releaser within a fortnight of its purchase. It is common for car manufacturers to go in for appeal after consumer commissions rule against them. For instance, in a similar case in October 2004, the Delhi state consumer disputes redressal commission had upheld the district forum's order directing the Tatas to replace the defective engine of an Indica car and provide a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the customer for causing mental agony. The car dealer was also directed to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for not providing proper service. The Commission had observed that “ the complainant had spent his hard earned money to purchase the vehicle and if it had to be taken to the workshop so often, it must have caused him immense mental agony besides harassment.”

Mail Today 14th April P 37 Delhi
With Thanks from Mail Today
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

SC: Big B can’t be prosecuted in Barabanki case

In a relief to Amitabh Bachchan, the Supreme Court on Monday gave him absolute protection from any future vindictive proceedings by the Mayawati government in relation to the Barabanki land, which the superstar had returned to the gram sabha following the controversy.

What came out from the apex court proceedings was the Mayawati government’s intention to target Bachchan and none else over the land deal.

When the state persisted that there was clear evidence of forging of land records and wanted permission to conduct an investigation, a bench comprising CJI K G Balakrishnan and Justice Aftab Alam said there was no evidence of Bachchan indulging in any forgery.

“If at all there was any forgery in the revenue records, it could have been done only by the officials and the state is free to inquire and proceed against them. If the government agrees, we will allow this,” the bench said. But, with Bachchan, a friend of rival SP leaders, out of the loop, the Mayawati government refused to take the offer. The bench, then, dismissed the state’s appeal.

Appearing for the state, senior advocate K K Venugopal and additional advocate general S K Dwivedi challenged an Allahabad high court order, giving a clean chit to Bachchan in the Barabanki land deal case after the mega star waived his claim over the farm land.

“The maxim ‘no person is above the law’ does not seem to apply to Amitabh Bachchan as despite clear evidence of forgery, the HC has restrained initiation of any criminal, civil or revenue proceedings against him relating to the land deal,” Venugopal said in his arguments. The bench wondered why the state was so keen to prosecute Bachchan despite the fact that he had given up the land and the gram sabha did not want to proceed against him.

Venugopal, faced with a bench that was not inclined to interfere with the HC order, stressed that there was glaring irregularities in the revenue records — the entries were made by different persons and wrong residential address given by the actor.

He said investigating an irregularity was the state’s prerogative and the HC couldn’t have said that no revenue, civil or criminal proceedings could be initiated against the actor as he had relinquished his claim over the 2.75 bighas of land at Daulatpur in Barabanki.

The HC, after waiver of Bachchan’s claim over the land, had concluded that in the absence of any proof against the actor committing any fraud or manipulating revenue records, it would be futile to proceed against him. The HC had ordered the land be restored to the gram sabha, the original owners. Fresh trouble for Amitabh The district authorities in Barabanki on Monday issued a notice to Amitabh Bachchan accusing him of undervaluing the stamp duty on a plot of land he bought. Additional district magistrate (finance) of Barabanki Shirish Dubey issued the notice to Amitabh and fixed May 5 for a reply.

The Times of India 1st April 2008 Delhi P. 11

With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

‘Fake driving licence no ground to deny claim’

Insurance companies cannot hide behind the fake licence of a driver of an insured vehicle, which is involved in an accident, to deny compensation to the victim or his kin, the Supreme Court has ruled.

“Only because the driver possesses a fake licence, that would not absolve the insurer to reimburse the owner of the vehicle the amount awarded in favour of a third party by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,” a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and V S Sirpurkar said.

Alternatively, if the insurance company pays the third party claim to the victim or his kin, it would be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, the Bench said.

One Ishwar Dutt Bhat, while travelling in a threewheeler, met with an accident being hit by a truck from the rear. The truck was insured with National Insurance Company. NIC resisted the claim petition filed by Dutt’s kin on the ground that the driver of the truck had a fake licence.

On appeal before the Supreme Court, the Bench said that there was a distinction between a claim made by the owner on account of damages to the vehicle and the compensation payable to the third party.

In case of fake licence, the insurance company may not be liable to pay on account of the damages to the vehicle, but it would not be absolved of its responsibility to meet the third party compensation in an accident, the Bench clarified.

The Times of India 2 April 2008, P 11 Delhi
With thanks from The Time of India

©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

GM brinjal battle goes to HC

Greenpeace Seeks Data On Field Trials; Firm Says It’s Trade Secret

The Times of India 27 March,2008 P. 13 The Times of India Delhi

New Delhi: It’s a classic case of commercial interest vs public interest which could set an important precedent. Genetically modified brinjal — expected to be the country’s first edible GM crop — could find its way to your plate soon.

But first, Delhi high court will have to decide whether the company conducting its field trials can keep data on health and environment safety tests out of the public domain on the grounds that the information is a “trade secret”.

The data in question comprises toxicity and allergenicity studies and was submitted by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Ltd (Mahyco), a subsidiary of multinational Monsanto, to the department of biotechnology for regulatory clearances.

A representative of environmental watchdog Greenpeace sought access to the data under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Currently, open-air field trials of GM brinjal are being conducted in the fields of 11 public sector institutions. It is expected to hit the market by 2009, with Indians being the first global consumers of this transgenic crop.

While Greenpeace says disclosure is in public interest, Mahyco has moved high court seeking quashing of the order passed by the Central Information Commission last year ordering the department of biotechnology to release data on the safety tests.

The company has argued that the data contains immense patentable information and should be considered its intellectual property.

In its petition, it has also said that the CIC order violates the government’s obligations under TRIPS. The CIC order came after the department of bio-technology turned down Greenpeace’s plea for data on the grounds that the information it sought included “commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party”.

Besides brinjal, Greenpeace also sought bio-safety data on GM bhindi, mustard and rice. However, the CIC found merit in the Greenpeace argument that the data would not be used for commercial purposes and was sought to ascertain the risks that transgenic crops pose, particularly when open-air field trials are being conducted across the country.

The second time around, the department of biotechnology did not deny access but said the data could not be provided as it ran into thousands of pages.

The Central Information Commission heard a second appeal on November 22, 2007. The Commissioner, after going through the Environmental Protection Act (1986), noted that ‘‘genetically engineered organism or cells are recognised by the government as an item potentially hazardous to public heath. “It automatically follows that full compliance with these rules is a matter for public interest”.

Mahyco subsequently moved Delhi high court which passed an interim order in December 2007 staying the CIC order till the next hearing of the case on April 23. GREEN VS PURPLE GM brinjal, which has not been tested anywhere in the world before, will be India’s first edible transgenic crop It has the same Cry1Ac gene from Bacillus thuringiensis as cotton, which makes it tolerant to fruit and shoot borers, pests which attack it throughout its life cycle. It is being tested at 11 locations under the supervision of the Indian Institute of Vegetable Research at Varanasi. This is a major departure from large-scale trials of cotton which were conducted on farmers’ fields .

With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in