Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)
M.C.D. vs Sureshi Devi on 24 February, 2012 cites

Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977

In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428, the three Judges Bench decision in Menu B. Mehta (supra) was relied. It was held that to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (the Act), the proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle was a sine qua non. The owner becomes vicariously liable for the act of his servant and the Insurer on account of the contract of insurance to indemnify the owner. It was observed that in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Act, negligence or default on the part of the owner or driver of the vehicle was not required to be proved. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that proof of negligence as required in a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act, is not the same as in a criminal case i.e. "beyond reasonable doubt", but "the preponderance of probability".
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 525 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors on 2 April, 2007

In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428, the three Judges Bench decision in Menu B. Mehta (supra) was relied. It was held that to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (the Act), the proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle was a sine qua non. The owner becomes vicariously liable for the act of his servant and the Insurer on account of the contract of insurance to indemnify the owner. It was observed that in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Act, negligence or default on the part of the owner or driver of the vehicle was not required to be proved. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that proof of negligence as required in a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act, is not the same as in a criminal case i.e. "beyond reasonable doubt", but "the preponderance of probability".
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 1989 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1