The Hindu Business Line : Bullocks are no milestones

ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2002, around 7 p.m. one Shekhar Basawaneppa Bodaki and his wife were returning home from their agricultural land in a cart drawn by two bullocks. Even as the cart trudged towards Hirebagewadi, duly observing traffic rules, a goods truck from the opposite side rammed into the cart. The Bodakis sustained grievous injuries. One of the bullocks died and the other sustained injuries; and the cart was completely damaged.

A claim for compensation was filed, and a court held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the truck driver. It awarded a compensation of Rs 38,000 — that is, Rs 15,000 towards the death of one bullock and Rs 5,000 for injury caused to the other bullock, Rs 15,000 for the damage suffered by the cart, and Rs 3,000 towards idle charges. The liability was placed on both the insurer New India Assurance and the truck owner Kallappa Channappa Hanchimani jointly and severally.

Aggrieved by the order New India knocked the doors of the Karnataka High Court and pleaded that it was being made liable in excess of Rs 6,000 `as per statutory provisions'. The company pointed out that `goods' as per Clause (13) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988 includes `livestock'; and that `property' includes goods carried in the motor vehicle, roads, bridges, culverts, causeways, trees, posts and milestones.

New India said that the claimant has to recover sum in excess of Rs 6,000 from the truck owner, since as per Section 147(2) of the MV Act, the liability of the insurer is only in respect of the damage to any property of third party that is limited up to Rs 6,000.

The High Court observed that the definition of property in the Concise Law Dictionary was exhaustive, as a generic term for all that a person has domain over. Though bullocks are treated as property in the literal sense, for all practical purposes the animals are to be treated as having their own existence, and they cannot be treated as if there were objects, said Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh.

The bullocks have to be treated as living beings on par with human being, he added, rejecting the argument that the same be viewed as mere property for the purpose of Section 147(2)(b). "The liability of the insurer will be to the extent of Rs 26,000, i.e., Rs 15,000 towards the death of one bullock, Rs 5,000 towards the injury to another bullock and Rs 6,000 towards damage to the bullock cart. The remaining amount of Rs 12,000 has to be saddled on the owner," ruled Justice Ramesh.

This is a milestone in benevolent justice that animal lovers will cheer at, because the court has reasoned that bullocks cannot be equated to trees, posts and milestones.

Money market miffed

ON JUNE 14, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Ford Credit with unlawful marketing of `Ford Money Market Account' and ordered the company to pay $7 lakh as `disgorgement of ill-gotten gains'. The company had promoted the accounts as comparable to a traditional money market investment, and emphasised that the accounts paid a guaranteed interest rate slightly higher than the average rate paid by money market accounts. "Many of Ford Credit's sales materials may have created confusion among investors by failing to explain that the `Ford Money Market Account' was not a bank account or a money market mutual fund," reads the press release on www.sec.gov. The company has been directed to drop `money market' from the name of its scheme.

LawLane@TheHindu.co.in

D. Murali

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page