Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.46 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Shila Datta & Ors on 13 October, 2011
9. The following further observation available in para 10 of the Report would require specific note: (Shila Datta case, SCC p. 519)
''10. ... We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the Tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute.'"
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Uday Pratap Singh And Ors. on 1 November, 2019
In above terms, the appeal filed by the claimants/appellants i.e. F.A.F.O. No. 254 of 2016 [Uday Pratap Singh And Ors. v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others] is partly allowed and for the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Company i.e. FAFO No. 293 of 2016 [The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Uday Pratap Singh And Ors.].
Mangla Ram vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 6 April, 2018
(emphasis supplied)
The Court restated the legal position that the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied by the Tribunal while dealing with the motor accident cases. Even in that case, the view taken by the High Court to reverse similar findings, recorded by the Tribunal was set aside.
Parmeshwari vs Amir Chand & Ors on 28 January, 2011
The Court appreciated the testimony of the eyewitnesses in paras 12 & 13 and observed thus: (Parmeshwari case, SCC p. 638)
"12. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed the case was by way of disbelieving the testimony of Umed Singh, PW 1. Such disbelief of the High Court is totally conjectural. Umed Singh is not related to the appellant but as a good citizen, Umed Singh extended his help to the appellant by helping her to reach the doctor's chamber in order to ensure that an injured woman gets medical treatment. The evidence of Umed Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he did not file a complaint himself. We are constrained to repeat our observation that the total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was not sensitised enough to appreciate the plight of the victim.
N. K. V. Bros (P) Ltd vs M. Karumai Ammal And Ors. Etc on 21 March, 1980
In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied as noted in Bimla Devi.
Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994
31. The importance of cross-examining a witness has been elucidated by this Court on several occasions, notably in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,(1994) 3 SCC 569 where a Five-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated:
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
Considering the age of the deceased i.e. between 31 and 35, the
Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16, which is as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104, taken note of and approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 10, 44 and 61 of the judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 16.
Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors vs Sohi Ram & Ors on 23 May, 2017
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh v. Sohi Ram 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar 2014 (3) UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570 (DB).