Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.21 seconds)N. K. V. Bros (P) Ltd vs M. Karumai Ammal And Ors. Etc on 21 March, 1980
(P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, 1980 A.C.J. 435 (S.C.)."
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Devilal And Ors. on 18 September, 1989
10. The other authority relied on is reported in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Devilal and Ors., 1991 A.C.J. 230 (Raj.). In that case, the question before the learned Single Judge for consideration was whether post-mortem report, inquest report and panchnama could be accepted as documents admissible in evidence without examining the persons who prepared them and the learned Single Judge held that the said documents were admissible in evidence and strictly speaking provisions of Evidence Act were not applicable before the Tribunal. It was held that if a document is a certified copy of a public document, it need not be proved by calling a witness or the person who prepared it. This authority is also not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The first information report cannot be held to be a public document and treated at par with the post-mortem report, inquest report and panchnarna.
Geeta Devi And Ors. vs Amrik Singh And Ors. on 11 November, 1989
The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Geeta Devi (supra) is of no help to the appellants inasmuch as it deals with the proof of insurance cover note and is clearly distinguishable on facts of the instant case.
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 1977
The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 1735. In para 6 of this decision, the Apex Court while dealing with the principle of res-ipsa-loquitur held as under:
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Mrs. Saraswati Debnath And Ors. on 24 January, 1995
9. There was no other evidence led by the claimants. Respondent-driver Sulakhan Singh entered the witness box and staled that he had left the job of driver prior to the alleged date of accident. Gurmit Singh said to be the person who had lodged the FIR, was not examined. The FIR was not even sought to be proved by examining the lodger of the FIR. The statement of Head Constable Mangal Singh does not prove the contents of the FIR. It only proves about the FIR being scribed by him. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in claim cases, the Claims Tribunal is not bound to strictly adhear to the provisions of Evidence Act, and Section 110(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 entitles the Tribunal to adopt summary procedure for trial. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Assam High Court in the case of Union of India v. Saraswati Debnath and Ors., 1995 A.C.J. 980 (Gauhati) wherein a learned Single Judge of that Court held that "the law is well settled that in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, the evidence should not be scrutinised in a manner as is done in a civil suit or a criminal case. In a civil case the rule is preponderance of probability and in a criminal case the rule is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not necessary to consider these niceties in a matter of accident claim case inasmuch as it is summary enquiry. If there is some evidence to arrive at the finding that itself is sufficient. No nicety, doubt or suspicion should weigh with the Claims Tribunal in deciding a motor accident claim case. The law on this is laid down by the Supreme Court in N.K.V. Bros.
Section 110 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
1