Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
P.Prasanna Kumari vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 16 January, 2013
11. It is argued by ld. Counsel for respondents that, even if the
testimony of the PWs is considered alongwith other materials on record
and FIR, no negligence of the respondent No. 1 is proved on record and
therefore, respondents are not liable to make any payment. I have
considered the submissions and gone through the judgments reported as
2009 ACJ 2719 titled Prasanna Vs. Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation; and Lacchu Ram & Others Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation (Manu/SC/0059/2014) in support of their
contentions. The contentions of the respondents appears to be true. The
petition, FIR shows that the truck was going ahead of the car, truck
applied the brake and the car coming from behind hit the truck leading to
accident. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the
respondents regarding negligence of the respondent No. 1 is squarely
applicable in the facts of this case.
1