Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-14-2002
Reported in : (2003)1MLJ414
r. jayasimha babu, j.1. in this appeal filed by the state it is contended that the suit temple is a public temple. the learned single judge has held otherwise by reversing the judgment of the trial court. 2. the temple is situated in thottipalayam village, palladam taluk. according to the plaintiff it is not a public temple and it is one that was installed by his fore-fathers. the temple does not have a prakaram, does not have a gopuram and there is no hundial kept therein. according to the plaintiff, the public were permitted to worship therein on occasions, but not as of right. as against that claim of the plaintiff, the state relies upon the report filed by it by it's inspector in which it is stated that information is received by the inspector, that the temple was established by the grandfather of the plaintiff. he confirms in that report that there is no gopuram, no prakaram and that there is no hundial kept therein. the only witness examined for the state is that inspector, who merely states that at the time of his visit there were some people offering worship at the temple. there is no evidence of any utsava held at the temple at the expense of the members of the public or of any donations made to the temple by the members of the public or that any festival was organised at the temple in which the public participated as of right. there is no evidence of utsavamoorthy kept therein or of any procession being taken out for any other idol in connection with the poojas .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-02-2002
Reported in : 2004ACJ1790
r. jayasimha babu, j. 1. the employee of the insured, while driving the vehicle, which was being driven negligently by him, died as a result of the accident that occurred. the insurer disclaimed the liability on the ground that no liability is cast on the owner of the vehicle when his employee is guilty of rashness and negligence and, therefore, the insurer is also not liable.2. section 140 of the motor vehicles act provides for liability without fault in certain cases. that is a liability created by statute on the owner of the vehicle which was involved in an accident as a consequence of which a person suffers death or permanent disablement. in this case, the person who died drove the vehicle which was involved in the accident. the fact that the accident was caused by the person who died is not a factor which is required to be taken note of for determining the liability under section 140(1) of the motor vehicles act.3. learned counsel for the insurer sought to read common law into section 140 of the motor vehicles act and contended that unless there is liability, de hors the act, the act is not to be read as having imposed a liability. we cannot agree. the very title of the chapter 10 as also the heading of section 140 makes it abundantly clear that the liability created under that provision is created by virtue of that statutory provision and that the section is intended to modify the requirement of proof of negligence as a precondition for casting liability. the liability .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-03-2002
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR1174]; (2003)ILLJ1041Mad; (2003)1MLJ497
r. jayasimha babu, j. 1. the employer is in appeal. the employer contends that the wages paid to casual labour employed in unloading raw hides and skins brought to its factory premises by the transporter is not an expenditure on which an employer is liable to pay any contribution. the employer claims that it is the driver of the lorry who brings workmen required for unloading the raw hides and skins, such unloading being done within the premises of the factory and that the transportation charges which includes the payments to be made to those labourers is paid to the driver who in turn disburses the wages to the casual labourers employed for the purpose of unloading. 2. the learned single judge has disbelieved the claim of the appellant that the casual labourer engaged for unloading were in fact hired by the driver of the lorry. the learned judge has taken the view that as the bringing of raw hides and skins to the appellant's factory premises is a continuing requirement in order to keep the appellant's factory functioning. the business of the appellant being that of processing of raw hides and skins, the engagement of workmen for unloading the raw hides and skins brought to its premises by lorries is a continuous requirement and the wages paid to such persons is part of the total wages paid out by the employer on which contribution is payable. 3. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the witness who claimed that the money was paid to those workmen .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-21-2002
Reported in : 2003ACJ1152; 2003(1)CTC257; (2003)1MLJ473
r. jayasimha babu, j. 1. the question that requires our consideration in this matter is, as to whether a owner of a motor vehicle and consequently, an insurer, can be held liable for the damage suffered by the victim by the negligent use of the vehicle even in cases where the negligent use was by a person who had stolen the vehicle, despite the precautions taken by the owner. 2. in this case, the vehicle which belonged to the owner has been found by the tribunal as also by the learned single judge to have been stolen. the accident occurred when the vehicle was being used by the person who had committed theft.3. the evidence in this case which has been accepted by the tribunal is that the owner had not been negligent as the owner had locked the car and had not to be held guilty for any other act of negligence in relation to the manner in which the car was left or the place at which it was left or the condition in which it was left. 4. the supreme court in the case of minu b. mehta vs. b. balakrishna ramachandra nayan, 1977 acj 118 has held that a finding of negligence is the foundation for casting liability on the owner and consequently on the insurer. 5. that position in law continued till provision was made in the statute for no fault liability by introducing chapter vii-a in the motor vehicles act, 1939 with effect from 01.10.1982 and after the repeal of the 1939 act, in section 140 of the motor vehicles act, 1988. 6. when a vehicle is stolen, it cannot always be said that .....Tag this Judgment!