Vehicle Piloting Another Vehicle Carrying Contraband Is Not Vehicle Used As Conveyance; Cannot Be Confiscated: Kerala High Court

Read Judgment

The Kerala High Court recently considered the question as to whether a vehicle piloting or accompanying another vehicle, which is transporting Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances could be held as vehicle used as conveyance in carrying the contraband so as to confiscate the same under Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), and answered the same in the negative.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that to hold that the vehicle accompanying or piloting another vehicle carrying the contraband, also as a vehicle carrying the contraband, and to treat the same also as conveyance is beyond the statutory intent of Section 60(3) of NDPS Act.

"...when the statute says an animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances alone is subject matter of confiscation, the horizon of the legislative intent cannot be extended to a wider magnitude to hold that the vehicle piloting or accompanying another vehicle, which carried the contraband also as one carrying the contraband. Therefore, the vehicle piloting or accompanying another vehicle transporting Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances cannot be held as vehicle used as conveyance in carrying the contraband and the said vehicle is not a subject matter of confiscation under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act".

Section 113 (3) Motor Vehicles Act - Owners Also Liable When Vehicle Driven With Excess Weight: Kerala High Court

Read Judgment

The Kerala High Court on 20/01/23 observed that owners of the vehicles are also liable to be prosecuted under Section 113(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in case they have permitted the vehicle to be driven with excess weight.

Hearing a batch of petitions challenging the proceedings initiated under Sections 113(3)(b) r/w. Section 194(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the court said the complaints raise specific allegations against the registered owners of the vehicles that they had permitted the vehicle to be driven with excess weight.

Personal Info Not Serving Public Interest Can't Be Disclosed: Gujarat HC

Read Judgment

The judicial officer had sought information with regard to the transfer requests of other judicial officers and the High Court's internal communications on such requests. He had also sought information with respect to complaints and resolutions against a Judge.

The Public Information Officer denied the request. In an appeal filed before the appellate authority, the judicial officer (respondent no. 2) contended that information regarding certain items had not been provided. The Appellate authority while rejecting the appeal observed that since the information was personal in nature, could not be provided and certain other information was not clear.

Delhi High Court Upholds Recovery Of Compensation From Underage Driver’s Father In Road Accident Case

Read Judgment

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the grant of recovery rights to an insurer against the registered owner of the car whose son was involved in a road accident leading to the death of a 42 year old man in 2013.

Justice Rekha Palli said the 42-year-old man lost his life only because the minor's father did not take appropriate steps to ensure that his vehicle is driven only by a person holding a valid driving licence.

"This Court, therefore, cannot condone such an act of the appellant and fasten the liability on the insurance company when it is evident that the terms of the insurance policy were breached by the appellant himself," the court said.

Justice Palli further observed that when the parents of minor children permit them to drive a motor vehicle, they not only put the lives of their own children in danger but also endanger the life of common citizens. 

"In the present case, the deceased Mr. Harinder Kumar, a young man of 42 years lost his life only because the appellant did not take appropriate steps to ensure that his vehicle is driven only by a person holding a valid driving licence”, the Court remarked," it added.

A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Rohini in November 2021 awarded a compensation of Rs.16,32,700 in favour of Kumar's wife and daughter. The tribunal in the order also said that the insurance company would have the right to recover the amount from the registered owner in appropriate proceedings as per law. It observed that that car owner by permitting his minor son to drive the vehicle, acted in breach of the terms of the insurance policy.

Referring to the award passed by the MACT, the court observed that the plea that his minor son had taken the car without his permission was not raised by the appellant/registered owner of the car either before the concerned police authority or the Juvenile Justice Board. 

“Once the appellant, despite being aware that his son was a minor child, left the keys of his car at home and has failed to give any explanation as to why the keys of the car at home were left unattended when he himself was not there, the defence being taken by the appellant is apparently an afterthought in an attempt to somehow to escape his liability," the court observed. 

The court added that the appellant did not lead any independent witness before the MACT in support of his plea that the car was driven by his minor son without his knowledge and permission.

It thus upheld the award of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.

Electricity Dept Has No Business To Check Property Ownership Of Consumer: Kerala High Court

Read Judgment

The Kerala High Court recently held that where a civil dispute is pending before the Civil Court, the Electricity Department ought to be circumspect in entertaining a complaint, unless there is gross violation of provisions of the Act.

Justice Amit Rawal passed the above order in a petition that was filed challenging the communication issued by the Electricity Board to the petitioner, asking her to show ownership of the property in question.

"Electricity department has no business to check the veracity of the ownership. Once the matter is pending before the civil court, Electricity Department should be circumspect in entertaining the complaint until and unless there is gross violation of provisions of the Act", the Court observed.

"Electricity department has no business to check the veracity of the ownership. Once the matter is pending before the civil court, Electricity Department should be circumspect in entertaining the complaint until and unless there is gross violation of provisions of the Act", the Court observed.