Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.79 seconds)
M/S. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Chandrakala Atmaram Mohite And Ors on 26 September, 2019 cites

Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal And Anr on 3 November, 2003

11. Point no.01 : The claimants had examined ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:44 ::: (Judgment) (13) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 mother of the deceased to support their claim. Though she has stated about the manner in which the accident had taken place, yet, it can be seen that she was admittedly not present at the spot when the accident took place. Claimants have relied on the police papers to support their contention. However, the contents of the pleadings i.e. the petition itself would show that they have not made any averment as to why only the Indica car driver was held negligent by police. There is no mention in the petition or thereafter in the affidavit in chief by CW 01 Chandrakala, that in view of the fact that report regarding accident was given by truck driver and the situation at the spot is different, they do not want to rely on the police papers. As stated in Oriental Insurance Company's case (supra), wherein reference is made to the decision in Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal [(2003) 8 SCC 745], that contents of a document are not automatically proved only because it is marked as exhibit. The initial burden to prove the manner of accident and negligence is always on the claimants. Therefore, proper and cogent evidence ought to have been adduced by the claimants in this case. Though the provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to M.A.C.T. and the Tribunal while following summary procedure is required to consider the claim of the claimants on the basis of preponderance of probabilities; yet, the Tribunal cannot forget basic principles of establishing the ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:44 ::: (Judgment) (14) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 liability which is inclusive of the point of negligence. Unless negligence is proved, the respondent being tortfeasor cannot be made liable to pay compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 267 - Full Document

Pukh Raj Bumb vs Jagannath Atchut Naik on 14 October, 2014

However, the Division Bench of this Court at Goa Bench in Pukh Raj Bumb Vs. Jagannath Achut Naik & others [First Appeal No. 32 of 2013, decided on 11-07- 2013] has held that mere production of police papers and exhibiting those documents does not dispense the proof of contents of those documents. The Division Bench of this Court went further and observed that merely on the basis of certified copies of FIR, spot panchanama and other documents, the claimants cannot prove their case. Therefore, it can be concluded that though police papers are required to be exhibited and the provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable, yet, that does not dispenses the claimants from proving the manner in which the accident had taken place and the point of negligence. If the claimants want to agitate negligence and rashness in respect of a particular party, then mere production of those documents will not absolve them, ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:44 ::: (Judgment) (15) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 unless the situation on the basis of spot panchanama allows the Tribunal to draw the principles of res ipsa loquitur.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Premlata Shukla & Ors on 15 May, 2007

11. Point no.01 : The claimants had examined ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:44 ::: (Judgment) (13) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 mother of the deceased to support their claim. Though she has stated about the manner in which the accident had taken place, yet, it can be seen that she was admittedly not present at the spot when the accident took place. Claimants have relied on the police papers to support their contention. However, the contents of the pleadings i.e. the petition itself would show that they have not made any averment as to why only the Indica car driver was held negligent by police. There is no mention in the petition or thereafter in the affidavit in chief by CW 01 Chandrakala, that in view of the fact that report regarding accident was given by truck driver and the situation at the spot is different, they do not want to rely on the police papers. As stated in Oriental Insurance Company's case (supra), wherein reference is made to the decision in Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal [(2003) 8 SCC 745], that contents of a document are not automatically proved only because it is marked as exhibit. The initial burden to prove the manner of accident and negligence is always on the claimants. Therefore, proper and cogent evidence ought to have been adduced by the claimants in this case. Though the provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to M.A.C.T. and the Tribunal while following summary procedure is required to consider the claim of the claimants on the basis of preponderance of probabilities; yet, the Tribunal cannot forget basic principles of establishing the ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:44 ::: (Judgment) (14) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 liability which is inclusive of the point of negligence. Unless negligence is proved, the respondent being tortfeasor cannot be made liable to pay compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 437 - S B Sinha - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017

17. Point no.02 : The claimants in their cross examination have prayed for enhancement. As aforesaid, they are contending that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting half of the salary of the deceased towards personal expenditure. However, it is to be noted that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [(2009) 6 SCC 121] as well as in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others [AIR 2017 SC 5157], half of the amount of the income of a bachelor is required to be deducted towards personal expenditure; so also, multiplier will have to be used as per the guidelines used in those authorities and therefore, when those guidelines have been followed by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erred in computing the amount of compensation. The cross objections are devoid of any merit and therefore, ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:44 ::: (Judgment) (19) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 they deserve to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

17. Point no.02 : The claimants in their cross examination have prayed for enhancement. As aforesaid, they are contending that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting half of the salary of the deceased towards personal expenditure. However, it is to be noted that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [(2009) 6 SCC 121] as well as in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others [AIR 2017 SC 5157], half of the amount of the income of a bachelor is required to be deducted towards personal expenditure; so also, multiplier will have to be used as per the guidelines used in those authorities and therefore, when those guidelines have been followed by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erred in computing the amount of compensation. The cross objections are devoid of any merit and therefore, ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:44 ::: (Judgment) (19) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 they deserve to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Jiju Kuruvila & Ors vs Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors on 2 July, 2013

14. The spot panchanama Exhibit 32 would clearly show that the Indica car was going from east to west but then by leaving its left side, it had gone to the wrong side before giving dash. The width of the tar road is 23 feet and it was having side margins. It will not be out of place to mention here, that the spot was shown by the truck driver; however, both the vehicles were at the said place. There were tyre marks of the Indica car slanting towards its right side. Therefore, the contents of the panchanama would indicate that Indica car driver was alone responsible for the accident. The ratio laid down in Jiju Kuruvila's case (supra) cannot be disputed. But in this case, it is not only the position of the vehicle but the other circumstances which are indicated in the spot panchanama prompt invoking of principle of res ipsa loquitur against the Indica car driver.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 730 - Full Document
1