A driver was convicted for rash and negligent driving causing death. He challenged the order before the High Court contending that the accident was not caused by rash driving but due to reasons beyond his control since the steering wheel broke suddenly. The mechanic’s report also confirmed this and said that the driver had brought this to the owner’s notice immediately after the accident. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held inter alia that the accident occurred due to reasons beyond his control and such acts came within the purview of Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code which provides that an accidental act or act of misfortune is not an offence if done without any criminal intention. Hence, the driver was acquitted (Mahadev vs State of Madhya Pradesh).
A widow succeeded in getting compensation after her husband died of cardiac arrest at the workplace by relying on a provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act that provides compensation on account of any injury caused due to “accident arising out of and in course of employment.” It was contended that he died due to stress and his death was not attributable to accident arising in the course of employment. She preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court after the High Court set aside the order of compensation. Agreeing with the High Court, the Supreme Court held inter alia that he had a past history of chest disease and thus his widow was not entitled to compensation. However, the Court directed that there wouldn’t be any recovery of the amount already paid to her (Jyothi Ademma vs Plant Engineer Nellore & Another).
In a recent judgement, the Madras High Court held that the father couldn’t be denied custody simply because he had remarried. The case came up before the High Court when the child’s maternal grandfather’s application for appointing himself as a guardian of the minor was rejected. The Madras High Court held inter alia that the lower court had rightly concluded that in the absence of evidence of the father acting against the interests of his children and with the grandfather’s counsel also conceding the same, denying the father of guardianship on the grounds of remarriage was unjustified (T. Kochappi vs R. Sadasivam Pillai).
SOLON
