Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.43 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2021
13.5 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in
"Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." , Mr. Rajan
Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal
Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022-
22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In
case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal
Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e-
mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the
Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the
directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders
dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure
the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the
receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated
07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 169 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009
suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took plac eon
11.10.2017 at about 10:45 AM involving of two vehicles i.e.
Vehicle bearing No. KA01AA0826 and vehicle bearing No.
NL014913. The vehicle vehicle no.KA01AA0826 was being
driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no.2 Sh. Arun
Singh, owned by respondent no.3 Sh. G Siva Kumar and insured
with respondent no.1 i.e. National Insurance Company ltd. and
the vehicle bearing no. NL01N4913 being owned by the
respondent no.4 Sh. Raman Saini and insured with respondent
no.5 i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance co. Ltd.? OPP
9.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be
apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident
claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In
civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of
evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal
prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as
it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under the M. V. Act,
this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this
regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. "
Parmeshwari vs Amir Chand & Ors on 28 January, 2011
reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the
subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Shila Datta & Ors on 13 October, 2011
9.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench
decision in matter "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Shila Datta & Ors." (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following
observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-