Skip to content


Options Dock ▼

Judgment Search Results Home > Search Phrase: motor vehicles act 1988 section 129 Page 1 of about 261,423 results (0.327 seconds)

Jan 22 2001 (HC)

Girish Uskaikar Vs. Chief Secretary and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001(4)BomCR122

..... and, therefore, in our opinion, it will be appropriate to defer the implementation of this decision taken by the government of goa in view of section 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 and rule 273 of the goa motor vehicles rules, 1991, by two months from the date of publication of our decision in various modes suggested by us in media, by the director general ..... consent of the parties.2.the petitioner in person in the instant petition, has challenged the decision taken by the government of goa to implement section 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 and rule 273 of the goa motor vehicle rules, 1991, in the larger interest of the society on the following grounds :---(i) that the decision taken by the government of goa is ..... for exemption in respect of the sikh community. the party in person therefore contended that the decision taken by the government of goa to implement section 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 and rule 273 of the goa motor vehicles rules, 1991, is bad in law since the same is violative of the provisions of the constitution of india.5. the affidavit filed by ..... katara v. union of india & another, reported in a.i.r. del 200, directed the commissioner of police to ensure compliance of the provisions of sections 128 and 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, after giving adequate publicity and further directed to take appropriate action against the police officers for not implementing these provisions meticulously and efficiently.11. another contention raised by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1997 (HC)

S.R. Bhat Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1998Kant153; 1998(2)KarLJ92

..... them to do so. the answer to the 3rd question therefore is an emphatic no.3. the parent statute namely the motor vehicles act, 1988 prescribes by virtue of section 129 for certain protection in relation to persons travelling on motorised two wheelers. the section reads as follows:--'section 129. wearing of protective headgear.- every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car, on a ..... of less than three horse power'. it was sought to be argued therefore that the exemption would cover motor cyclists with vehicles of less than three horse power. this contention is totally and completely untenable.9. i have referred to section 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 which is clear and unambiguous and any rule that is made in exercise of powers derived under that ..... act must as of necessity be for purposes of carrying out the objectives of the act and cannot be ultra vires the parent act or contain a provision that defeats the express ..... head-gear has become minimal. the advocate demonstrates to me that rule 230 has been promulgated by the state government in exercise of powers derived under the motor vehicles act and that section 129 of that act makes the use of helmets compulsory. these provisions of law are still on the statute book, they have not been repealed and in total defiance of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 2003 (HC)

Narayanan Nair Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Reported in : I(2004)ACC205; AIR2004Ker29; 2003(3)KLT676

..... the state is bound to enforce the provision of law as contained in section 129. on the other hand, mr. roy chacko submits that the respondents have not acted in violation of any law.5. the 1939 act was replaced by the motor vehicles act, 1988 to take care of the 'fast increasing number' of vehicles; 'adoption of higher technology'; the free 'flow of passenger and freight with the ..... jawahar lal gupta, c.j. 1. is the state bound to enforce the mandate of section 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 that 'every person driving or riding.... on a motor cycle shall, while in a public place, wear protective headgear'? this question was answered in the affirmative by koshy, j. in o.p. no. 17480 of 1998. the decision was ..... challenged in w.a. no. 1980 of 1999 on the ground that by act 54 of 1994, section 129 had been amended to provide ..... least impediments'; the 'concern for road safety standards' and other similar reasons. the act of 1988 lays down 'stricter procedures relating to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2001 (HC)

Anand Mohan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : II(2002)ACC260; 2002(1)AWC819

..... sudhir narain, j.1. the petitioner has, infer alia, sought a writ for declaring section 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') as ultra vires. this section provides that every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car, on a motor cycle of any class or description) shall, while in a public place, wear a protective headgear of such description ..... of an accident; and(b) is securely fastened to the head of the wearer by means of straps or other fastenings provided on the headgear.' this provision corresponds to section 85a of the motor vehicles act, 1939, with some modifications.2. we have heard sri anand mohan, the petitioner in person. he has challenged the vires of this provision. the vires of any ..... view either towards right or left because of the nature of the headgear.5. the state government has framed uttar pradesh motor vehicles rules. 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules'). rule 201 keeping in view the provision of section 129 of the act has provided the specification of the protective headgear, which is to conform to the specification given in sub-rule (2) ..... throughout the territory of india. the petitioner has not shown in what manner these rights have been curtailed by enacting the provisions of section 129 of the act. section 129 of the act permits a person to drive or ride on a motor cycle of any class or description but he has to wear protective headgear (helmet) conforming to the standards of bureau of indian standards .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 1999 (HC)

Dr. Joseph Manadan and Etc. Vs. Transport Commissioner, Govt. of Keral ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2000Ker20

..... original petitions relate to implementation of section 128 and 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988. therefore, they are disposed of together. section 128 of the motor vehicles act reads as follows :'128. safety measures for drivers and pillion riders : (1) no driver of two wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle and no such person shall be ..... carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the motor ..... also authorised to frame rules granting further exemption.9. in the above circumstances, i direct the state of kerala and director general of police to see that section 129 of the motor vehicles act is strictly implemented. they should issue circulars and a time of three months should be given so that existing drivers and pillion riders can purchase helmets. ..... the above provisions will cause difficulties and if court orders they will be implemented.3. in o.p. no. 5245 of 1993 it is contended that section 129 of the motor vehicles act is unconstitutional and is violative of article 19(1)(d) of the constitution of india as it is unreasonable and puts restriction on freedom. it is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 2002 (HC)

Prabhanshu Kamal and ors. Vs. Awadhesh Singh Bhadoriya and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2003(1)ALT(Cri)1; 2002CriLJ4532; 2002(3)MPHT496

..... agency. in the present case, he ought to have seen whether the direction to wear headgear is according to the provisions of the motor vehicles act. counsel for petitioners invited attention to the provisions of section 129 of motor vehicles act. section 129 of motor vehicles act is reproduced below:--'129. wearing of protective headgear.-- every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car, on a ..... this complaint had no merit and is dismissed. however, before parting, it is directed that the authority shall strictly enforce the provisions of section 129 of motor vehicles act and rule 213 of madhya pradesh motor vehicles rules and any person obstructing the enforcement of law should be taken to task and suitable criminal action be initiated against the concerned. even in ..... judge. it is expected that additional sessions judge is well versed with legal provisions. from bare perusal of section 129 of the motor vehicles act, it is clear that legislative mandate is that every person driving or riding on a motor-cycle of any class or description shall, while in a public place, wear protective headgear confirming to the ..... , special judge and first additional sessions judge, gwalior.2. a complaint under section 200 of code of criminal procedure was filed in the court of special judge alleging an offence under section 13(1) of prevention of corruption act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as an act). on filing of complaint special judge without going through the contents of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 1998 (HC)

Navinder Jeet Vs. Chandigarh Administration and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1999P& H112; (1999)121PLR234

..... respondents can challan the persons in accordance with the provisions of section 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988. the interim order of the supreme court, therefore, does not come to the rescue of the petitioner in this regard ..... the said order has been stayed by the supreme court. irrespective of that, our attention has been drawn to section 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 which reads as under:--'129. wearing of protective headgear:-- every person driving or riding (otherwise) than in a side car, on a motor cycle of any class or description) shall, while in a public place, wear (protective headgear conforming to the ..... the perusal of section129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 reproduced above that every person even when he is riding on a motor cycle has to wear the 'protective headgear'. even if the operation of the judgment passed by this court has been stayed by the supreme court, that will not put an end to the rigour of section 129 of the motor vehicles act, 1988. that being so, indeed, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2008 (SC)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jashuben and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2008ACJ1097; AIR2008SC1734; 2008(2)AWC1144(SC); 2008(4)MhLj569; (2008)3MLJ33(SC); (2008)151PLR465; RLW2008(4)SC3373; (2008)4SCC162; 2008AIRSCW2393; AIR2008SC1734; 2008(4)SCC162; (2008)2SCC(Cri)752; 2008(3)CivilLJ668; 2008ACJ1097; 2008(2)LH(SC)895; 2008(2)KCCRSN156

..... may be arrived at by adopting various methods, application of structured formula being one of them. such a formula has also been provided for in schedule ii appended to the motor vehicles act, 1988. while determining the amount of compensation, certain well known principles must be kept in mind. 12. it is not a case where, as on the date of death, the salary ..... a bread winner.16. in rathi menon v. union of india : [2001]2scr365 , this court, upon considering the dictionary meaning of compensation held:in this context a reference to section 129 of the act appears useful. the central government is empowered by the said provision to make rules by notification 'to carry out the purposes of this chapter'. it is evident that one ..... of the purposes of this chapter is that the injured victims in railway accidents and untoward incidents must get compensation. though the word 'compensation' is not defined in the act or in the rules it is the giving of an equivalent or substitute of equivalent value. in black's law dictionary , 'compensation' is shown as -equivalent in money for a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2001 (HC)

NitIn Transport Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and o ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : II(2001)ACC342; 2002ACJ1383; 2001(3)ALLMR189; 2001(4)BomCR533

..... application till its complete realisation along with the proportionate costs throughout. the said amount is inclusive of the amount of compensation payable under section 92-a of the motor vehicles act. the amount already paid to the appellants shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount. so far as the apportionment of the additional ..... paid shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount of compensation.first appeal no. 192/85 is partly allowed. the award passed by the tribunal in motor vehicle case no. 48/82 is modified and it is hereby ordered that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 shall pay rs. 79,800/- to ..... other averments made by the applicant were also denied by the msrtc.8. united india insurance company (the non-applicant in all the aforesaid motor vehicle cases and respondent in all these appeals) contended that the accident in question occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tanker. ..... /85 is also filed by 'm/s. nitin transport', rajkot challenging the judgment and order dated 25-3-1985 passed by the tribunal in motor vehicle case no. 49/82 as the tribunal has allowed its claim for damages against msrtc and united india insurance company (original non-applicants) only to ..... the accident in question belonged to the said firm. this firm has challenged the judgment and order dated 25-3-1985 passed by the tribunal in motor vehicle case no. 50/82 whereby the tribunal has directed the appellant (original non-applicant no. 1) and the united india insurance company, rajkot (original .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2008 (HC)

Siby Paul Vs. Praveen Kumar G.N. and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2009ACJ2322; AIR2009Ker99; 2009(1)KLJ274

..... conduct of the petitioner which led to the head injury for him and the consequent disability at a very young age. section 129 of the motor vehicles act 1988 provides for wearing of protective head gear by those riding two wheelers. under explanation to the said section protective head gear is 'helmet', the use of which has proved it's capacity to protect the rider from head ..... injury in the event of accident. the section specifically states that every driver and pillion rider of a motor cycle of any class or ..... of the act, was not worn by ..... the motor accidents claims tribunal as to whether the injured in a motor bike accident had suffered head injury and if so, whether at the time of accident the driver or pillion rider, as the case may be, who claims compensation for head injury was wearing a helmet. if the protective head gear, namely, helmet, the use of which is mandatory under section 129 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //