stated that the accident was not occurred due to the
mechanical defect. It is to be noted that PW9 has not inspected the
offending vehicle
opined that the accident was not occurred
due to any mechanical defects.
11.It is mainly argued on the side of the revision
petitioner/accused
clearly stated that the accident was not
occurred due to any mechanical defect.
12.It is mainly argued on the side of the revision
petitioner
deposed that the accident was not occurred due to the
mechanical defects.
12.It is mainly argued on the side of the revision
petitioner/accused
stated that the accident had not occurred due to
mechanical defect. Further, it is to be noted that PW6 has not
inspected the lorry
petitioner/accused
submitted that the accident occurred only due to the mechanical defects
in the offending vehicle and hence, the accused is not responsible ... deposed that the accident has not occurred due to the
mechanical defect and the offending vehicle TN-37-BC-1323 was
examined only
opined that the accident was not
occurred due to any mechanical defects.
10.It is mainly argued on the side of the revision
petitioner/accused
seen that the accident
was not happened due to mechanical defects. Further, the photographs were
taken only after the occurrence. Hence, the non-examination
opined
that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects.
11.It is mainly argued on the side of the revision
petitioner/accused
stated that the accident had not occurred due to
mechanical defect. It is to be noted that PW7 has not inspected the
offending vehicle
