Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Amod Kumar Ray & Ors. vs Raj Kumar Chauhan And Ors. on 25 May, 2011
In terms of the directions passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in its latest judgment titled as "Amod Kumar Ray &
Ors Vs Raj Kumar Chauhan & Ors" {CM(M) 649/2011 decided on
25.05.2011}, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award
amount in the State Bank of India, District Courts Saket, New Delhi
in the name of the petitioners in terms of the award and shall also file
the compliance report. It is made clear that at the time of the deposit
of the award amount with the bank, the Insurance company shall
specifically mention the suit no. of the case, title of the case as well
as date of decision with the name of court on the back side of the
cheque. The Insurance Company shall also file a copy of the award
attested by its own officer to the bank at the time of deposit of the
amount with the bank.
Shakeel Mohammad Bagawan vs Shri Raju Ashokrao Mohite on 18 June, 2013
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off two claim
petitions i.e. petition bearing No. 382/10 titled "Mohd. Shakil Vs. Raju
@ Raj Kumar & Anr." and other petition bearing no. 474/10 titled
"Mohd. Umar Vs. Raju @ Raj Kumar & Anr." as these two claims
have arisen out of the same road vehicular accident which had taken
place on 12.08.2009 and the respondents are also common and
these two petitions stood consolidated vide proceedings dated
24.01.2012. The plea of the petitioners is that the they had
sustained injuries in a road vehicular accident that took place on
12.08.2009 near Yamuna Bridge, Kalandikunj, Okhla, Gate No. 13,
New Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No. UP14AV4486
(motorcycle) driven by respondent No. 1, Shri Raju @ Raj Kumar.
M/S. M. B. K. Enterprises vs Ganpatrai Rashiwashi Bro. P. Ltd. & Anr on 17 June, 2009
No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material
on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things
necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the
Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a
criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation
for the welfare of the society." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
observed as in a case titled 'N.K. V. Bros (P) Ltd. V/s M.Karumai
Ammal & Others, (1980) 3 SCC 457 that: "Road accidents are one
of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers
operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades
the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to
draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine
of resipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see
that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not
escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some
obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from
Suit No. 382/10 & 474/10 Page 8 of 21
the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should
not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes". The
respondent No. 1, Shri Raju @ Raj Kumar has not cared to enter into
the witness box to explain his version regarding the manner in which
the accident has taken place and and has not cared to explain
circumstances regarding his involvement in FIR No. 61/10, PS
Jaitpur and the same compels this Tribunal to draw adverse
inference against him. In the backdrop of above case laws and the
documents filed on record and particularly in view of no controverting
evidence on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it stands proved on
record that the petitioner, Mohd. Shakil and Mohd. Umar had
suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.
1 on 12.08.2009. Accordingly, the issue No. 1 is decided in favour of
the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2 (COMPENSATION):
1