N.KIRUBAKARAN
R. Mallika – Appellant
Versus
A. Babu – Respondent
1. (“Tamil”) @ goes the saying in Tamil. Whether "Dharma" would save a life or not, wearing of helmet would definitely do so, by acting as a protective headgear. It is really disheartening to note that a number of precious lives are lost due to non-wearing of protective headgear, namely, helmet, as mandated under Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988. The pathetic position is that in spite of the enabling statute and a number of judgments rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as various High Courts including ours, neither the authorities' act as per the statue nor follow the directions issued in this regard.
2. It is a common sight, on the roads of every City, that people ride two-wheelers without helmets. It is shocking to note that 6419 persons lost their lives in 2014 alone in Tamilnadu due to non-wearing of helmet while riding two wheelers. It means that every day atleast 17 persons are dieing in Tamil Nadu alone.
3. When the Parliament enacted a statute viz Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which mandates the riders of two-wheelers to wear helmets to pr
Syed Sadiq and others V. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
Ajay Ganu v. Union of India and others
S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India
Baby vs. Travancore Devasvom Board and others
Jasbin Singh vs State of Punjab reported in 2006 (8) SCC 294
Union of India and another vs Kriloskar Preumatic Co.Ltd reported in 1996 (4) SCC 453
Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.