Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.41 seconds)National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022
24. Further, as Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, the compensation towards loss to estate, funeral expenses
and consortium is to be awarded. The petitioners contended that
they have spent substantial amount towards transportation of
dead body, funeral and obsequies etc., but no documents are
produced. Hence this Tribunal award Rs.18,150/- towards loss
to estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses as
enhanced at the rate of 10% on every 3 years.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 158 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009
13. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for
compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, the claimant is expected to prove the incident on basis of
principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view taken by
10 SCCH-23
MVC-1226/2023
this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others
which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported
in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it is necessary to be
borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be
done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to
establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could
not have been applied.
Section 134 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sri Anand V Nair S/O T K Vijayakumar vs M/S The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 16 November, 2009
Added more
further it is also relevant to rely on the Judgment of Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in
MFA.101144/2020 (MV-I) in the case of Anand v/s Arjun and
The Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., wherein also the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka, had interpreted Sec.129 of IMV Act had also held
that non wearing of helmet is not a ground to deny the
compensation. As such this aspect puts a last nail to the coffin
for the contention urged by the respondent No.2.