Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Mathew Alexander vs Mohammed Shafi on 13 July, 2023
24. While considering the judgments this Tribunal has already
noted above that the ratio laid down in Mathew Alexander's case (supra)
can hardly be of any dispute, however facts of that case were altogether
different as in that case the driver Nixon Abey Mathey driving Maruti Alto
car no.KL-2AC-1370 along with five others traveling in that car died in the
accident.
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sakshi Bhutani & Ors on 2 July, 2012
2024.02.24
MACT No.750/2016 Page 3
16:04:30 +0530
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.
Rakesh Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 2 August, 2023
26. Another judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner
in Rajesh Yadav and others vs. State of UP case (supra) which is
essentially with regard to criminal trial and therefore not at all applicable to
proceedings in MACT case.
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1