Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.26 seconds)Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2021
36. Manager, UCO Bank is also directed that share of petitioner no.3,
amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- along with the interest on this amount shall be
kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor
Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 100 monthly fixed
deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100
months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High
Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh
Tyagi & Otheres v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
Shabina @ Shamina & Ors vs Satvir & Ors on 24 January, 2020
16. Thus, the facts that FIR has been registered and charge-sheet has
also been filed against the respondent no.1 by the police, are sufficient
proof to conclude that respondent no.1 was negligent. Reliance is placed
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as
Shabina v. Satvir & Ors. MAC. APP.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors on 2 April, 2007
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance
company is that the respondents claimants should have
proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this
regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal: 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On
perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear
that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified
copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.
955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending
vehicle, (ii) Criminal record showing completion of
investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under
Section 279/304-A IPC against the driver, (iii) certified
copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver
was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical
inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the
deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach
the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings
under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in
a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not
required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this
contention of the counsel of the appellant also falls face
down. There is ample evidence on record to prove
negligence on the part of driver."
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sakshi Bhutani & Ors on 2 July, 2012
18. Besides above, it is settled proposition of law that in an action
founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of
proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be
tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is
to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence.
Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the
Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP.
Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009
No.
550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal
Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari
v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.