Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)

Mayur Arora vs Amit @Pange & Ors. on 12 April, 2010

6. There is merit in the first contention of the appellant. In view of the specific pleading that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.5 and all the relevant documents, namely, FIR, site plan, seizure memo and the statement of the eye-witness being on record, the Claims Tribunal ought to have conducted an inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has been held by this Court in Mayur Arora v. Amit, 2011 (1) TAC 878 that the Claims Tribunal has to conduct an inquiry into the claim under MAC.APP.No.46/2007 Page 3 of 10 Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Instead of converting the claim petition into Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal ought to have examined the investigating officer and the eye-witness. Be that as it may, in view of the contention raised by the appellant, the claim petition is treated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and on the basis of the documents placed on record by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal and applying the principle of res-ipsa loquitor, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.5.
Delhi High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 63 - J R Midha - Full Document

Santosh Devi vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 23 April, 2012

In Santosh Devi v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2012 (4) SCALE 559, the Supreme Court held that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the income of self-employed person as well as ordinary skilled and unskilled labour such as barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, etc., periodically increase due to inflation and, therefore, it would be reasonable to make addition to the income for computation of compensation. The Supreme Court held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 2663 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1