Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Pushpa Rana And Ors. on 20 December, 2007
To determine the negligence, I am being guided by the
judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble
High Court held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the
criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the
investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section
279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery
memo and the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle,
these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the
driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and
hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this
regard.
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
MACT no. 439/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal
Page no. 4/16
Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful
act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the
accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that,
mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or
death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition
maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also a settled law
that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while
making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the
word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code.
This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with
compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Zahid Khan vs Arun Mandal & Ors. on 24 February, 2015
In Zahid Khan Vs. Arun Mandal and others, 2016 ACJ 1142 in
which injured was labourer and suffered 85% permanent disablement due
to amputation of right leg, Rs. 100,000/- was awarded as pain and
suffering, Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs. 1,75,000/- for
amputation of leg and disfigurement, Rs. 200,000/- for artificial limb and
Rs. 200,000/- for future medical and other expenses.
Accordingly, compensation is calculated as below:
1