Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.28 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
54. It is has been further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 34 that:
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995
AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. -
1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
59. Further, as the Petitioner was aged about 56 years at the time of
the accident, a multiplier of 9 shall be applicable (Ref: Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121) and therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner
comes to be ₹48,98,658.60/- (i.e. ₹5,44,295.40/- x 9).
Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 14 February, 2019
"20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a
beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with
compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident
has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award
just and fair compensation. As held by this Court
in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata(Supra), strict rules of
evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in
motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say,
"the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of
preponderance of probability and not the strict standard
of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in
criminal cases".
Rajwati @ Rajjo vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 9 December, 2022
The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United
India Insurance Company Ltd.2, wherein it was observed that: