List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that the insurance company is not liable if the claimant was travelling in the trailer attached to the tractor, which was not insured though tractor was insured in the case of Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude.

Background

• The present matter pertains to compensation asked for the injuries suffered in an accident to which the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) through its judgment in 2015 awarded compensation of Rs. 1,78,500/- with interest at 6% per annum.
• The Bombay High Court (HC) enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,99,280/- with interest at 9% per annum through its judgment in 2018.
• The HC, while acknowledging that the claimant was in the trailer which was not insured that was being towed by an insured tractor, absolved the Insurance Company of responsibility and the compensation was to be taken from the owner of the vehicle.
• The appellant/claimant therefore presented the claim before the Supreme Court (SC) seeking payment of the compensation.

Court’s Observations

• The SC bench comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that the law is well settled that when a tractor and trailer are involved, both the tractor as well as the trailer are required to be insured.
  • In a normal circumstance, when the claimant was travelling in the trailer which was not insured, the liability on the Insurance Company cannot be fastened.
• However, the bench, while observing that the claimant is a lady who was working as a labourer aged about 20 years as on the date of the accident, relied on the case Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brij Mohan & Ors. (2007) and invoking its powers granted by Article 142 of Constitution of India held that in such circumstances, it would not be possible for the claimant to recover the amount from the owner.
  • Therefore, in that circumstance, it directed that the respondent-Insurance Company shall pay the amount awarded by the HC as compensation with the accrued interest and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT)

• Motor Accident Claims Tribunals deals with claims relating to loss of life/property and injury cases resulting from Motor Accidents.
• Established by Motor Vehicle Act 1988, Claims Tribunal is defined under Section 165 which authorizes the State Government to constitute Claims Tribunals to adjudicate claims for compensation originating from motor vehicle accidents, ensuing death or bodily injury to persons or damage to any property of third parties.
• Section 165(3) provides for qualifications to be a member of the tribunal as follows:
  • A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal unless he -
    • (a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or
    • (b) is, or has been, a District Judge, or
    • (c) is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court or as a District Judge.
• Key features of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal include:
  • Jurisdiction: MACT has jurisdiction to hear cases involving accidents caused by the use of motor vehicles and the resulting in injuries or fatalities.
  • Compensation: Its primary purpose is to determine the amount of compensation that should be awarded to the victims or their legal heirs in case of death. This compensation typically covers medical expenses, loss of income, disability, and pain and suffering.
  • Speedy Resolution: They aim to provide quicker resolutions to accident-related cases compared to regular courts. This is important for the timely disbursement of compensation to the victims or their families.
  • Appeals: Decisions given by MACTs can be appealed in Higher Court of respective state by any of the dissatisfied parties.
    • Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 states that subject to the other provisions, any person aggrieved by an award from a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court.
    • Also, no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees.
  • Insurance Companies: Insurance companies often play a role in these cases, especially when the compensation is sought from the insurer of the vehicle responsible for the accident.

Source: Rajasthan High Court (Civil Writ Petition No. 8182/2005)

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that a dispute under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (Act of 1961) cannot be termed as an 'industrial dispute' under the purview of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act of 1947).

• The Rajasthan High Court gave this observation in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Shri Narendra Singh Shekhawat & Anr. and Other Connected petitions.

Background

• An apprenticeship contract was executed between the parties for 11 months and during these 11 months apprenticeship training was provided to the respondents.
  • After completion of the said period, the agreement ended through a termination order.
• Thereafter, the respondents raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur, under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 challenging the validity of their termination order.
• The Tribunal passed the order in favor of respondents by considering the dispute as an industrial dispute and considering them as workmen under Act of 1947 and hence, held the termination as violative of the provisions of the Act.
• Petitioners filed a petition in this case before the HC contending that the dispute cannot be considered as an industrial dispute.
  • And said, the respondents do not fall within the definition of workmen, hence the Labour Court was not having any jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by the respondents.
  • Furthermore, as per Section 18 of the Act of 1961 the provisions of labour law are not applicable.

Court’s Observation

• The HC mainly observed that in case of dispute of apprentices, the award granted by an Industrial Dispute Tribunal is illegal and without jurisdiction.

Industrial Dispute

• Industrial disputes are conflicts that arise between employers and employees, often due to differences in interests, opinions, or perceived violations of rights.
• These disputes can have far-reaching implications for both the parties involved and the overall functioning of the economy.
• Industrial disputes can result in legal actions, such as lawsuits and court orders.
  • This can lead to additional costs and complexities for all parties involved.
• These disputes are governed under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and are adjudged by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.
• Section 2(k) of the Act defines Industrial Dispute.

Workman

• Under the Act of 1947, a 'workman' refers to any person employed in an industry, whether skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, technical or non-technical.
• Workman includes diverse array of individuals, from factory workers and laborers to administrative staff, all of whom contribute to the functioning of an industrial establishment.

Apprenticeship Act, 1961

• The Act of 1961 is a crucial piece of legislation in India that governs the framework and implementation of apprenticeship training programs across various industries.
• The Act contains 38 Sections segregated into 3 chapters.
• Under the Apprenticeship Act, eligible organizations are required to offer apprenticeship training to individuals, allowing them to acquire practical knowledge and skills under the guidance of experienced professionals.
• Section 18 of the Act differentiates apprentices and workers.

Legal Provision

Section 18 of the Act of 1961: Apprentices are trainees and not workers -

Save as otherwise provided in this Act -

(a) every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker; and

(b) the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice.

Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Apex Court in the matter of Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, held that keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides.

Background

• The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife who were married in the year 2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals.
• As per the appellant, the respondent left her matrimonial house in 2010.
• The appellant (husband) had filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) in 2012 which was dismissed by the Family Court in 2013.
• An appeal was filed before the High Court which was subsequently withdrawn.
• The petition for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion was later filed before the Family Court which was also dismissed.
• The appeal filed by the appellant against that order was also dismissed by the High Court.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Apex Court by the appellant.
• The Apex Court granted a decree of divorce in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

Court’s Observations

• The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides.
• The bench further noted that when there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then dissolution of marriage is the only solution.

Legal Provisions

Principle of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

• This concept was originated in New Zealand in 1921 through the historical decision in Lodder v. Lodde.
• The irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a situation in which the husband and wife have been living separately for a considerable period and there is absolutely no chance of them living together again.
• This Principle has attained informal validity as it has been evoked in several judicial decisions granting divorce.
• In India, incorporation of such ground for divorce in HMA has not yet been made but it has been strongly suggested by various Law Commission Reports and a Bill was presented in this regard in the Parliament titled The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights

• The expression Restitution of Conjugal Rights means the restoration of conjugal rights which were enjoyed by the parties previously.
• Section 9 of HMA deals with Restitution of Conjugal Rights. It states that -
  • When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
  • Explanation —Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from society.