Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1983
Section 110 and
Section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 of India
The liability could be statutory or contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. However, there is nothing in Section 95 of the Act prohibiting the parties from contracting to create unlimited or higher liability to cover wider risk. In such an event, the insurer is bound by the terms of the contract as specified in the policy in regard to unlimited or higher liability as the case may be. In the absence of such a term or clause in the policy, pursuant to the contract of insurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it unlimited or higher. If it is so done, it amounts to rewriting the statute or the contract of insurance which is not permissible.
On the other hand, there is consistency on the point that in case of an insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium, the liability of the Insurance Company is neither unlimited nor higher than the statutory liability fixed under Section 95(2) of the Act.
In the case of the Insurance Company not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95(2) of the Act and would not be liable to pay the entire amount. ...Catherine Masud & ors. Vs. Md. Kashed Miah & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 30
It needs to be emphasized that the standard for estimating the amount of damages in case of actionable negligence resulting in death must not be a subjective standard but an objective one and regard in this behalf is to be had to the earnings of the deceased at the time of his death, his future prospects, his life expectancy, the amount he would have spent on himself and on the support of his dependants, the economic condition of the country, the property left by him and the like. On this court ends of justice would be met if we award compensation to the tune of Taka 1,50,00,000 on these two claims/items. This money on the fact of the given case, according to us is not unreasonable but good. ...Catherine Masud & ors. Vs. Md. Kashed Miah & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 30 ....View Full Judgment

Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1983
Section 128:
It is evident that section 128 of the MV Ordinance read with rule 220 of the MV Rules requires that the claim application is to be submitted in CTA Form within six months of the accident. However, the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 128 of the MV Ordinance authorizes the Tribunal to entertain an application after the period of six months, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the claimants were prevented by sufficient cause. ...Catherine Masud & ors. Vs. Md. Kashed Miah & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 30
The Preamble of the Validation Act not only narrates the background of enactment of the Act, but also, in unambiguous words, declares the intention of the legislature. In the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs of the Preamble of the Act, the Parliament has unambiguously declared that the Validation Act was enacted to fill in the legal vacuum resulting from the decision of the Apex Court and it authorizes the continuity of some of the ordinances (কতিপয় অধ্যাদেশ) and continuation of the validity of the actions taken under the ordinances and the rights and liabilities acquired by the people thereunder “উক্ত অধ্যাদেশসমূহ ও উহার অধীনে প্রণীত বিধি, প্রবিধান বা আদেশবলে কৃত কাজ-কর্ম, গৃহীত ব্যবস্থা কার্যধারাসমূহ,..................... জনগণের অর্জিত অধিকার সংরক্ষণ এবং প্রজাতন্ত্রের কর্মের ধারাবাহিকতা বহাল ও অক্ষুণ্ন রাখিবার নিমিত্ত ...........................” ...Catherine Masud & ors. Vs. Md. Kashed Miah & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 30
The settled principle of interpretation of a statute including an Act of Parliament is that in ascertaining the legislative intent, the Preamble is an important pointer to the intent, but the text of the Act is the ultimate determinant factor of such intent. ...Catherine Masud & ors. Vs. Md. Kashed Miah & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 30
The use of the words “shall” and “may” in the same provision in relation to registration of the application and examination of the applicant is legally significant. The significance is that the registration of the application is mandatory, but examination of a claimant is the discretion of the Tribunal. The principle of interpretation of a statutory provision in respect of the words “shall” and “may” is that the first word “shall” is generally mandatory and the second word “may” is generally discretionary. ...Catherine Masud & ors. Vs. Md. Kashed Miah & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 30 ....View Full Judgment