Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)Section 170 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Ravi vs Badrinarayan & Ors on 18 February, 2011
"29. That apart, no discussion on the point of delayed FIR would be complete without a
reference to the decision in (2011) 4 SCC 693: 2011(1) TAC 867, (Ravi v. Badrinarayan), it was held
there as follows:
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Mita Samanta & Ors on 15 September, 2009
Thus, by applying the ratio of the judgment of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Company Ltd.(supra) to the facts of the instant case it is evident that the Insurance
Company after obtaining leave under Section 170 of the Act has failed to defend the
claim petition in a manner that the law permitted it to defend. After obtaining leave
under Section 170 of the Act it was incumbent on the Insurance Company to summon
the owner of the offending vehicle to appear as a witness for disputing the allegation of
the claimants.
Mangla Ram vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 6 April, 2018
Upon investigation of the case an FIR was also lodged which prima facie
prove the negligence as has been held in Mangla Ram (Supra). The wife of the deceased
adduced evidence as PW1 narrating in details about the accident and filed various
documents including the FIR and other documents which will go to show that her
husband died as a result of the accident which took place due to rash and negligent
driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company failed
to bring out any evidence to discredit the testimony of the said witness. Though the
learned advocate for the appellant tried to make out a case of contributory negligence on
account of involvement of two vehicles but we do not find any evidence to show that the
victim had also contributed to the accident and was thus responsible for the same. In
the written statement of the Insurance Company no case of contributory negligence was
made out but there is a pleading with regard to composite negligence. It is not a case of
composite negligence. Furthermore, the Insurance Company did not examine any
witness to rebut the appellants evidence. The owner of the offending vehicle inspite of
service of summons chose not to contest the claim petition. The owner did not enter into
the witness box to rebut the allegation of the claimants. The Insurance Company could
have adduced evidence by examining the driver of the offending vehicle as their witness,
but it was not done.
1