Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
"9. Admittedly, the petition filed by the
claimants was under Section 166 of the Act
and not under Section 163-A of the Act. This is
not in dispute. Therefore, it was the entire
responsibility of the parents of the deceased to
have established that Respondent 1 drew the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which
resulted in the fatal accident. Maybe, in order
Signature Not Verified to help Respondent 1, the claimants had not
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.08.2023
17:35:58
MAC.APP.258/2018 Page 12 of 14
taken up that plea before the Tribunal.
Therefore, the High Court was justified in
sustaining the judgment and order passed by
the Tribunal. We make it clear that if for any
reason, the claimants had filed the petition
under Section 163-A of the Act, then the dicta
of this Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9
would have come to the assistance of the
claimants.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors on 2 April, 2007
In our view the issue that we have raised
for our consideration is squarely covered by
the decision of this Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5
SCC 428. In the said decision the Court
stated:
Section 161 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
State Of Mah. Thr.Pso, Amravati vs Ashish Radhesham Sharma And 4 Ors on 28 March, 2023
16. Even the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in his order dated
04.09.2012, passed on FIR No. 15/2003, PS: Saraswati Vihar, titled
State vs. Ashish Sharma, has refused to believe PW-3 to be an eye-
witness to the accident, observing as under:-