Back
K. SOMASHEKAR, CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Branch Manager The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Poornima M S W/o Late Pruthviraj M – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri A N Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Prithvi Raj B N, learned counsel who is representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Smt Bharathi who is representing Sri Venkatesh R Bhagat, learned counsel on record for respondent No 4.
2. Assailing and disputing the findings given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hunsur through orders in MVC No.7/2020 dated 11.02.2021 by which liability is fastened upon the appellant herein to pay compensation to the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 herein, present appeal is preferred. The appellant is the Insurance Company.
3. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.40,78,310/- as compensation in favour of the claimants fastening the liability upon the owner and insurance company of the lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-09-D-1497 and directed them to pay the amount awarded.
4. The matrix of the case as could be perceived from the material available on record is that on 15.10.2019 at about 7.00 p.m., while the deceased – Pruthviraj.M (hereinafter referred to as deceased for brevity) was proceeding on bike bearing Reg. No. KA- 54-J-8498 from Hunsur towards Mysuru, a lorry bearing Reg. No. KA
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging negligence, and failure to maintain sufficient distance does not automatically imply liability without evidence.
The court affirmed that negligence lies solely with the driver of the other vehicle, and an FIR against the deceased does not constitute conclusive proof of negligence.
Point of law: if the vehicle which is running behind the heavy vehicle, must maintain the proper distance if the proper distance is not maintained then the whole negligence shall be determined on the....
The court established that the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ can shift the burden of proof in negligence cases, particularly when a charge-sheet is filed against the driver, indicating prima facie....
Liability for vehicular accidents entails that claimants can seek compensation from negligent parties, with joint tortfeasors both liable for full damages.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of insurers in cases of negligent driving and the apportionment of compensation in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The absence of warning signals while parking a vehicle constitutes sole negligence, making the vehicle owner fully liable for resultant accidents, with no contributory negligence from the victim.
The main legal point established is the liability of the owners and insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident, and the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claimin....
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
