Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
A1 Kuncham Lavanya – Appellant
Versus
R1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
1. Delays condoned. I.A.s No. 374022020 and 374052020 are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal takes exception to the Final Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2019 in M.A.C.M.A. No. 77 of 20171 [Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 1-insurance company was allowed by setting aside the award dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT) in M.V.O.P. No. 458 of 2011, to the extent of imposition of liability on the respondent no. 1-insurance company.
BRIEF FACTS
4. On 20.03.2011, Mr. K. Yadagiri (the deceased) was riding his Bajaj scooter bearing Registration No. AP 28 AG 8602 and going from Habsiguda to his residence via Taranaka. At about 930 PM, when he reached Taranaka (HUDA Complex), his scooter was hit on the backside by a red coloured Hyundai Verna car bearing Registration No. AP 29
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The first case mentions that the High Court was "wrong" in its finding, but this statement appears to be a critique or observation, not a formal legal treatment indicating the case has been overruled or discredited in subsequent jurisprudence. The second case discusses principles of tribunal functioning and insurance liability without any indication of judicial treatment that undermines its validity or has led to it being overruled or rejected.
[Followed / Affirmed]
None explicitly indicated. The cases do not mention subsequent courts following or affirming the rulings.
[Distinguished]
None explicitly mention that they have been distinguished in later cases.
[Criticized / Questioned]
The first case states that the High Court was "wrong" in its finding, which suggests a critique or disagreement with the original judgment. However, this is a statement within the case itself rather than a subsequent treatment, so it cannot definitively be categorized as criticism by later courts.
[Reversed / Overruled / Abrogated]
No language in the list indicates that either case has been reversed, overruled, or abrogated.
[Legal Principles / Clarifications]
The second case clarifies principles regarding tribunal functioning and insurance liability, but there is no indication that this ruling has been subsequently challenged or treated as bad law.
Both cases lack explicit references to subsequent judicial treatment or citations indicating their standing in later jurisprudence. Without such information, their treatment remains uncertain. The statement that the High Court was "wrong" could imply a disagreement, but without further context, it cannot be definitively classified as criticism or overruled treatment.
Therefore, both cases are categorized as uncertain regarding their subsequent judicial treatment due to the absence of explicit indicators.
**Source :** Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. VS Tapan Kr. Singh - Supreme Court Goutam Joardar VS State of West Bengal - Supreme Court Mangla Ram VS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Supreme Court
Death in motor accident - It is duty of investigating agency to find out identity of offending car and driver and take action in accordance with law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the standard of proof in Motor Accident Claims cases, emphasizing the preponderance of probabilities over beyond reasonable d....
In motor vehicle accident claims, proof is required on a preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt; the insurance company's failure to provide witness testimony undermined it....
Claimants must establish vehicle involvement in an accident on the preponderance of probability; mere delay in FIR does not negate claims if credible evidence exists.
The testimony of an eyewitness can be credible even if not cited in the Chargesheet, and sufficient evidence can establish the involvement and negligence of the offending vehicle.
In motor vehicular accident cases, claimants are not required to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts but only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
The delay in lodging an FIR does not invalidate a motor accident compensation claim if satisfactorily explained, and the tribunal must evaluate evidence based on the preponderance of probabilities ra....
The acquittal of a driver in a criminal case does not negate civil liability for negligence established through sufficient evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
