Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.86 seconds)The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors on 2 April, 2007
11. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal . On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver.
The Managing Director, Tnstc Ltd vs K.I. Bindu And Ors on 5 October, 2005
2. Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu and Ors. (2005) 8 Scale 173
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Patrica Jean Mahajan And Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 July, 2002
The Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan has held as under:
Section 173 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]
Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996
6. The first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant was that the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the overtime amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The deceased was admittedly employed as a driver with Ms. Ramni Taneja, Advocate and as per the deposition of the Advocate herself the overtime was a part of his regular income on account of the fact that she was regularly attending conferences held with the senior advocates till late hours in the night. The respondents claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards the overtime, but the Tribunal has considered only Rs. 1,000/- per month as earnings of the deceased towards the overtime on average basis. I do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellant that as the Tribunal has adopted the criteria of Sarla Dixit's case, in which the benefit towards the future prospect is taken into consideration, therefore, the overtime allowance should not have been considered while giving the benefit towards the future prospects. Future prospects and advancement in career cannot be equated with the overtime allowance. Moreover, the claimants have proved on record that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month towards the overtime allowance. The contention of the counsel for the appellant on this score is therefore, rejected.
1