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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
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

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