Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.26 seconds)United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Shrestha & Ors. on 19 September, 2018
521/15, 522/15 and 529/15 titled
United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shrestha & Ors., United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Kiran Arora & Ors. and United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Master Rishi
& Ors. respectively, wherein his Lordship has made similar observations
regarding non application of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of
Naveen Kumar (supra) to the case of an insured vehicle and has declined the
request for discharge or exoneration of Insurance Co. on this ground.
Moreover, it cannot be ignored that the M.V. Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation and the requirement of every vehicle having a valid insurance
certificate or policy has been incorporated in the said Act as a beneficial
measure and to secure the ends of justice and to ensure suitable and assured
compensation for victims of a road accident. This object cannot be permitted to
be defeated on a technical ground in a case like this where the vehicle was
having a valid insurance policy on the day of accident.
Section 50 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 21 December, 2009
33. The particulars of Form-V of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed
Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:-
Parmeshwari vs Amir Chand & Ors on 28 January, 2011
It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings
conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.6 of 30
in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of
probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable
doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil
case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim
petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil
case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13
SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of
Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal
No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
Mangla Ram vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 6 April, 2018
It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings
conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.6 of 30
in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of
probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable
doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil
case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim
petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil
case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13
SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of
Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal
No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... vs Smt.Kamlesh & Ors. on 11 November, 2008
22. Apart from above, R-1 was the best witness who could have
challenged or controverted the testimony of above witness and other evidence
regarding the manner of accident, but as already discussed above, he has not
come forward to contest this inquiry properly and to depose that the above
accident did not take place due to his rash and negligent driving of the
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.9 of 30
offending car or in the manner as stated by PW2 or that it took place due to
fault of deceased himself. Hence, an adverse inference can also be drawn
against the respondents on this aspect, in view of the law laid down in the case
of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh,
reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
(i) Loss of dependency
Petitioner/PW1 in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A has claimed that her
husband was aged around 43 years at the time of accident and she has also
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.11 of 30
tendered on record, inter-alia, a copy of matriculation certificate, aadhar card
and driving licence (DL) of her deceased husband as Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 and
Ex.PW1/11 respectively. It is observed that in all these documents, the date of
birth of deceased Ravindra Singh is found stated as 22.11.1972 and going by
these documents, the age of deceased as on the date of accident, i.e.
18.07.2016, comes to 43 years and around 8 months. Hence, in view of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been
upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No.
25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '14' is held applicable for calculating the loss of
dependency caused to petitioners in respect of death of deceased Sh. Ravindra
Singh.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011
Further, it has also been noticed that the Constitutional Bench
judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) was given by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 31.10.2017 and it was also laid down by their Lordships in the said
case that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 3 years since
then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled
to an increase @ 10% on the amounts awarded under the conventional heads
of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium'.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kamlesh & Ors. on 9 August, 2017
Co. Vs. Kamlesh & Ors. in
MAC Appl.