Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977
In Minu B. Mehta (supra) has observed as
follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.03 seconds)National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate for the
appellants-claimants submits that the learned tribunal
erred in holding that the claimants have failed to prove
the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending
vehicle without considering the evidence of PW-3, sole
eyewitness to the occurrence who has categorically
stated of such fact before the court. He further submits
that evidence of the sole eyewitness with regard to the
rash and negligent act has been well corroborated upon
filing of charge-sheet under the relevant provisions of
the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the
offending vehicle by the investigating agency. Thus, the
compensation should be quantified by applying
principles under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Referring to the evidence of PW-2, Income Tax Inspector
who produced the income tax returns of the deceased
for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14
marked as Exhibits-14, 14/a and 14/b respectively,
he submits that the annual income of the deceased
should be considered at Rs.2,12,200/-. Furthermore,
he submits that since at the time of the accident the
4
victim was 34 years of age and had jewellery business,
hence, following the observation of Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed in National Insurance Company
Limited versus Pranay Sethi and Others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are entitled to an
amount equivalent to 40% of the annual income of the
deceased towards future prospect and further, they are
also entitled to general damages under the conventional
heads. The deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd of his annual
income. In light of the aforesaid submissions, he prays
for enhancement of the compensation amount.
Deepal Girishbhai Soni And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda on 18 March, 2004
The three Judges Bench in Deepal Girishbhai
Soni (supra) has observed as follows:
Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009
In Bimla Devi (supra), the respondents denied and
disputed the occurrence of the accident. It was
contended that the deceased died in the previous
evening and finding the dead body of a person wrapped
in a blanket lying at some distance from the bus; they
informed the police personnel, whereafter the driver
22
was falsely implicated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the learned Tribunal has rightly proceeded on the
basis that apparently there was no reason to falsely
implicate the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and further
observed that for the purpose of determining the said
issue, the Court was required to apply the principle
underlying burden of proof in terms of the provisions of
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as to whether a
dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the
spot at such an early hour, which was required to be
proved by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The facts
involved are distinguishable from the case at hand.
Bishan Devi & Ors vs Sirbaksh Singh & Anr on 20 August, 1979
20. While making the aforementioned
recommendations, the Commission referred to the
following observations made by this Court
in Bishan Devi and Ors. v. Sirbaksh Singh and
Anr. [(1980) 1 SCR 300] :
Indra Devi & Ors vs Bagada Ram & Anr on 18 August, 2010
Thus, bearing in mind the aforesaid principles
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in an
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, the claimants are required to establish the fact of
18
rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending
vehicle. Though the initial onus lies upon the claimants
to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle in an application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act but the onus shifts when the
claimants by leading evidence discharges his initial
onus. It is trite law that the approach and role of the
Courts while examining the evidence in accident claim
cases ought not to be find fault with non-examination
of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal
trial, but instead should be only to analyze the material
placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the
claimant's version is more likely than not true. At this
stage, it is to be examined whether the claimants have
succeeded in discharging its initial onus. The
claimants in order to establish their case with regard to
rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending
vehicle examined one Jitendra Prasad as sole
eyewitness (PW-3) to the occurrence and also produced
certified copy of the charge-sheet marked as Exhibit-2.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Diana George (Chakraborty) & Ors on 17 May, 2019
The decision of this Court in Diana George
(Chakraborty) (supra) that the proposition of Lachoo
Ram (supra) and Nishan Singh (supra) was observed to
be not applicable since in that case, the act of rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle
was established whereas in the case at hand, the
aspect of rash and negligent has not been established
by cogent evidence as discussed in the forgoing
paragraphs.
1