Skip to main content

Where there is no eyewitness, issue to be decided on evidence and documents - MACT

A motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) here has directed the United India Insurance Company to pay Rs 6.25 lakh compensation to the relatives of a 40-year old woman who was killed in a road accident near Vitthal Mandir on Dhanori Road on October 2012.

The tribunal, presided over by district judge N P Dhote, relied on cogent material evidence furnished by police while rejecting the insurance firm's claim that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the motorcyclist whose vehicle hit the woman, Rekha Sandip Sutar, causing her death. The company had insured the motorcycle.

Rekha had alighted from an autorickshaw near Vitthal Mandir on Dhanori Road when she was hit by a motorcycle around 12.30pm on October 31, 2012. She sustained multiple injuries and was admitted to the Sassoon Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries around 3.30pm, the same day. In the ensuing probe by the Vishrantwadi police, an offence of rash and negligent driving was registered against the motorcyclist Ganesh D Shinde.

Rekha's husband, Sandip (47), two children, Nikhil (20) and Savita (18), jointly filed a claim petition through their lawyer Ashish Patni, before the MACT on December 1, 2012 demanding compensation of Rs 7 lakh with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from Shinde and the insurance firm. While the case proceeding against Shinde was conducted ex parte, the insurance firm opposed the claim on the grounds that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by Shinde.

In an order passed recently, judge Dhote observed that none of the parties examined any eyewitness. As such, the issue ought to be decided on the basis of cogent material evidence or documents on record. Police papers relating to the investigation were not contested by either parties and hence were relied upon for establishing the charge of rash and negligent driving.

The court observed that there was nothing to show that the accident happened due to reason beyond the control of the motorcyclist or any mechanical defect in the bike. On the contrary, spot panchanama and other investigation papers indicated rash and negligent driving by the motorcyclist.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Pune/Insurer-told-to-pay-Rs-6-25-lakh-to-accident-victims-kin/articleshow/45041043.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

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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more