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

Winding-Up Petition Can’t Be Used If Bona Fide Payment Disputes Pending

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of M/s Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd vs  M/s Shree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd, has held that a winding-up petition has serious  ramifications on the financial standing of a company and cannot be used in cases  where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed by one party to the  other and in such cases the company court should relegate the matter either to the  civil court or arbitral tribunal. In this case, Uttam Industrial Ltd entered into a contract with Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd  to provide machinery and equipment for a sugar plant. Article referred:  http://www.livelaw.in/remedy-winding-petition-cant-relied-upon-bona-fide-payment-disputes-karnataka-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more