Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Munjarin – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the accident (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. claims and contentions regarding the accident (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. testimony of an eyewitness (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's assessment of evidence standards (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. credibility of eyewitness testimony (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. inconsistencies in statements of the vehicle owner (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. contradictory statements raise doubts (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. implications of non-cross-examination (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. burden of proof on vehicle owner (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. court's analysis of liability and standard of proof (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 11. dismissal of appeal and order for compensation (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Appellant impugns award dated 08.03.2021, whereby Detailed Accident Report (DAR) has been disposed of and compensation awarded.
2. The brief facts leading to the case are that telephonic information was received from a mobile number 9811327366 in respect of a road accident. A DD entry was recorded on 05.07.2014 at Police Post Inderlok.
3. Based on the information received, the Investigating Officer reached at the spot of the acc
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
