Skip to main content

Where no witness forthcoming, court has to believe the claimant - Motor Accident Tribunal

In case of compensation claims for road accidents, it is difficult to produce eyewitnesses as evidence as they are reluctant to depose in court. So the court has to believe the oath of the claimant. Making this observation, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed the insurer and owner of a lorry to pay 15.21 lakh to the parents of an engineering student who died in an accident in 2007.

In their submissions to the tribunal, Udipi Ramesh Rao, of Anna Nagar, said that on August 11, 2007, his son Adithya Rama Rao was riding pillion on a two-wheeler near GNT Road when a lorry, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the vehicle. He died on the spot.

Adithya, a student of Velammal Engineering College, was returning home after attending classes. As such the owner and the insurer of the vehicle were "vicariously and statutorily liable to pay compensation," said the petition. Denying the claim, New India Insurance Co Ltd said the owner of the vehicle did not report the accident to the company.

The parents had to prove the lorry was involved in the accident, the firm said. There was no negligence on part of the lorry driver and the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist, they said, adding that there were no witnesses to prove the rash driving of the driver.

Sub-judge J Chandran said Rao had produced sufficient documentary evidence like the FIR, rough sketch, death report, post-mortem report and inquest report which proved the lorry driver was responsible for the accident. "It is settled by law that documentary evidence prevails oral evidence," said the tribunal.

It then directed the lorry driver and insurer to pay 12.96 lakh for loss of dependency to the family, 2 lakh for loss of love and affection to the parents and 25,000 as funeral expenses.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Lorry-owner-insurer-told-to-pay-Rs-15-lakh-to-kin-of-dead-student/articleshow/40023971.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more