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

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

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more