Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Paramjit Kaur And Anr. vs Murarilal Shankya And Ors. on 20 April, 2004

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajo Kumar vs Sh. Sidharth Kumar Arora on 30 July, 2009

21. In the affidavit PW2 mentioned the zebra crossing on the spot and improving upon the case he has stated that deceased was crossing the road through zebra crossing quite cautiosly following the rule when the motorcycle suddenly came and hit her. This is not so mentioned in the FIR and in fact what is stated there in exactly the opposite. If there was a zebra crossing in existence at the spot there was no reason for PW2 to have stopped and waited on the divider. In other words if in the given conditions it was wise enough on the part of the deceased a lady to have crossed the road why PW2 himself kept waiting for a better opportunity to cross, has been unexplained. On the point of rash and negligent driving Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High MACT Suit No. : 298/07 Page 11 of 15 Court of Madhya Pradesh in Paramjeet Kaur & Ors. Vs. Murari Lal Shankya & Ors. reported in 2005 ACJ page 401 wherein it was held that burden to prove that driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent would be upon the driver. Not withstanding the above, the present case is quite different, where the petitioner's own witnesses have spoken clearly about the own negligence of the deceased. In case, assuming that the claim is proceeding as ex­parte against all the respondents, even then it is the petitioner who must prove his case and rash and negligent driving on the part of driver. No doubt, the burden to prove is not very strict but it cannot be that when the petitioner's own eye witness deposed about the negligence of the deceased herself, same is to be ignored, as the basic principles of evidence cannot be ignored so that there should not be resultant failure of justice to anyone of the parties.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1