Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Section 134 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 158 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Ravi vs Badrinarayan & Ors on 18 February, 2011
In this regard it is relevant to rely
on the decision in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others reported in AIR
2011 SC 1226, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as
hereunder :
Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009
18. 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 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.
National Insurance Company Limited, ... vs Krishnappa And Another on 19 September, 2000
Further the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and
another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105, where the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle
was not examined to prove any contributory negligence on the part
of scooterist held that the accident had occurred due to rash or
negligent driving by the rider of the offending van. Even here in this
case the driver of car is not examined to show that there was no
negligence on his part and even otherwise the IO, as already observed,
has clearly opined that the accident occurred only due to the fault of
the driver of car and he was charge sheeted.
Ananda S/O Vithoba Gavade vs Arjun S/O Tukaram Nawale on 5 July, 2023
As such this court is taking the notional income as prescribed
by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru. Therefore
in view of the above decision, the accident was occurred on
09.08.2021. Therefore, Rs.15,000/- has to be taken into
consideration as monthly income of the petitioner.
1