Continue awareness drive on use of helmet for road safety: Andhra HC to police
The directive came while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Tandava Yogesh.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Cheemalapati Ravi, appreciated the rise in helmet usage in Vijayawada and underlined the need for statewide awareness on traffic safety and helmet compliance.
The bench instructed the Chief Secretary to act on the police department's proposal for advertising funds to promote public awareness via newspapers and television.
The Court reiterated its earlier order mandating the use of body cameras by traffic police and sought a detailed implementation report.
It was informed that the state is integrating CCTV cameras with AP FiberNet to automate detection of traffic violations.
The High Court directed the Andhra Pradesh FiberNet Managing Director to file an affidavit on the project's progress and added him as a respondent.
The next hearing is scheduled for August 20.
Petitioner Tandava Yogesh stressed that non-enforcement of the Central Motor Vehicle Amendment Rules has contributed to rising accidents.
He noted helmet enforcement is lax in rural areas and urged penalties, including vehicle seizure for unpaid fines.
He highlighted that 4,276 people died last year due to not wearing helmets.
Government Special Counsel S. Pranathi responded that consistent awareness programmes are being conducted and fine collections have increased. She confirmed the integration of CCTV with Andhra PradeshFiberNet is in progress and will take additional time to complete.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
11 hours ago
- News18
'Accident While Commuting To Office To Be Compensated': SC Clarifies Legal Position
SC holds that accidents during commute to work are compensable under EC Act if a clear nexus with employment is established, restoring benefits to a deceased worker's family. The Supreme Court on July 29 clarified a key aspect of labour law by holding that an accident occurring to an employee while commuting to or from the place of employment may be considered as one arising out of and in the course of employment under Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, provided a clear nexus exists between the employment and the circumstances of the accident. A division bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan delivered the judgment in Davishala & Ors vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Anr, setting aside the decision of the Bombay High Court and restoring the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad. The deceased, Shahu Sampatrao Jadhavar, was employed as a watchman in a sugar factory. His working hours were from 3 am to 11 am. On April 22, 2003, he left home on his motorcycle to report for duty but was involved in a fatal accident five kilometres from the factory. A claim was filed under the Employees' Compensation Act by his dependants including his widow, children and mother. The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs 3,26,140 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from May 22, 2003. On appeal by the insurance company, the High Court reversed the decision, holding that the accident did not occur in the course of employment and, therefore, fell outside the statutory scope of compensation. The Supreme Court noted that the core issue involved the interpretation of the phrase 'arising out of and in the course of employment" and whether it could include accidents during the commute to the place of work. The Court referred to Section 51E of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, which provides that accidents occurring while commuting are deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment if a nexus is established between the accident and the employment. Although Section 51E was introduced by way of an amendment in 2010, the Court held that it is clarificatory in nature and therefore has retrospective application. The Court noted that statutes that are pari materia and deal with a similar subject matter can be used to interpret each other when legislative intent is aligned and there is no express bar. The Court reiterated that both the Employees' Compensation Act and the Employees' State Insurance Act are welfare legislations aimed at providing benefits to employees in case of injury, death or sickness arising from employment. In such cases, the interpretation must be purposive and liberal in order to fulfill the object of the legislation. The Court observed that Indian jurisprudence has long recognised the principle of notional extension which permits certain areas and periods outside the physical premises of employment to be treated as an extension of the workplace under specific circumstances. The applicability of the doctrine depends on establishing a proximate connection between the employment and the accident in terms of time, place and purpose. In the present case, the deceased was travelling to his place of work to report for duty at 3 am. The accident occurred on a direct route without deviation and within reasonable temporal proximity to his shift timing. The Court found that the nexus required under the statute was satisfied. The Court also cited settled principles of statutory interpretation which hold that declaratory or clarificatory statutes aimed at removing ambiguity or filling legislative gaps are retrospective in operation unless expressly stated otherwise. It held that Section 51E of the ESI Act served to clarify existing law rather than introduce a new obligation or right. Restoring the order of the Commissioner, the Court concluded that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and that the claim under the Employees' Compensation Act had been rightly allowed. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
HC orders TPNODL to pay Rs 2L interim compensation in electrocution mishap
Cuttack: Orissa high court on Monday directed electricity distribution company TP Northern Odisha Distribution Limited (TPNODL) to pay Rs 2 lakh as interim compensation to a woman whose husband died after coming in contact with a live electric wire in 2007. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court held the company strictly liable for the mishap under the principle of strict liability. The court said under strict liability, entities undertaking hazardous activities are responsible for any resulting harm, irrespective of negligence. The order was passed by Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra while considering a petition filed by Umamani Nayak in 2008. She had sought Rs 2 lakh as compensation along with 12% annual interest for the death of her husband, Sanatan Nayak, due to alleged negligence by the power utility. According to the petition, the incident took place on July 6, 2007, near Sergarh under Khantapada police station limits in Balasore district. Sanatan, 54, a daily-wage labourer, was on his way to the market when he stepped into a water puddle that had become live due to a snapped L.T. (low-tension) wire lying in it. Though he was rushed to the district headquarters hospital, Balasore, he died the same evening. Observing that the distribution company had a statutory responsibility to ensure safety in electricity supply, Justice Mohapatra in the July 28 order said, "As the death was caused due to electrocution by coming in contact with a snapped L.T. line electric wire lying on the road... the Court is of the considered view that by application of the principle of strict liability, the Distribution Company is strictly liable for the death. " The petitioner's counsel had referred to the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents Regulations, 2020, which fixes Rs 4 lakh as compensation for loss of human life. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now However, the court noted that the regulation cannot be applied retrospectively as the incident took place in 2007. Accordingly, keeping in view the regulation and the compensation amount sought in the petition, the Justice Mohapatra directed the distribution company to pay an interim compensation of Rs 2 lakh to the petitioner within a period of two months along with interest @8% from the date the incident took place till payment of such amount. "In the event the payment is made after expiry of the aforesaid time stipulation, the compensation amount shall carry interest @12% till the date of actual payment is made", Justice Mohapatra specified, adding, "Further, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue other suitable remedies in the common law forum for higher compensation, if so advised."
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
Delhi HC declares Nutella a ‘well-known trademark' in Ferrero filed infringement case
The Delhi High Court has officially declared Nutella, the popular hazelnut cocoa spread, as a 'well-known trademark', observing that the brand enjoys widespread recognition not just in India but across the globe. 'This leaves no shadow of doubt that plaintiffs are well established in the markets all across the globe and are not mere fly-by-night operators. Their registered trademarks 'NUTELLA'/ and its variants are recognised all across the globe, including but not limited to India,' LiveLaw quoted Justice Saurabh Banerjee in his ruling. The Court also took into account that Nutella had already been recognised as a 'well-known trademark' by both the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the International Trademark Association. The judgment came in response to a suit filed by Ferrero SpA, the Italian confectionery company behind Nutella, against a company accused of trademark infringement. According to the allegations reported by LiveLaw, the defendant was engaged in the manufacture, supply, and sale of counterfeit Nutella products that bore identical trademarks, labels, and trade dress to that of Ferrero's original. Ruling in Ferrero's favour, the Court expressed concern over the public health risks posed by such counterfeit goods, particularly because they are edible products consumed by a wide demographic, including children.
