B. V. NAGARATHNA, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Rajo Devi & Anr. Etc. – Appellant
Versus
Manjeet Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Prasanna B. Varale, J.) :
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to the common order dated 27.02.2020 in FAO No. 1905 of 2014 (O&M) and 8197 of 2014 (O&M) whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had partially upheld the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kaithal, (‘MACT’ for short) to the extent of application of principle of contributory negligence.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.07.2009, a newly purchased motorcycle bearing chassis No. S107RP602050 (insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (Respondent no. 5 herein) was being driven by the deceased Gautam who happened to be a bachelor aged around 22 years (son of claimants, namely Rajo Devi (appellant no. 1 herein) and Prem Chand (appellant no. 2 herein) and on which his brother-in-law, deceased Harpal Singh (his dependants are Harjinder Kaur, Babu Singh and Noordeep (appellant nos. 3, 4 & 5 herein respectively) aged about 30 years, was riding pillion. While they were going on the main road in the area of Police Station Kaithal, an Alto car bearing registration No. HR08-J-3157 (insured with M/s New India Assurance Company Limi
Death in motor accident – Provision of providing compensation in accident cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial provision to enhance social justice.
Contributory negligence must be proven by the party alleging it, and findings cannot rely solely on site plans without corroborative evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper attribution of contributory negligence and the computation of just and reasonable compensation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.