Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
New India Assurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rupin W/o Late Sh. Vishal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company to challenge the Award dated 12.08.2021 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs.19,05,000/- along with interest 8% per annum has been granted on account of demise of Shri Vishal in a road accident, on 18.03.2015.
2. The main ground of challenge of the Award is that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the accident.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the admission and non-declarations in the evidence of PW2/Shri Ashok Kumar, who despite his assertion that he had remained on the scene of crime for about 15 minutes and had met the Police, but has admitted that his name did not feature in the List of Witnesses in the Chargesheet.
4. According to R3W1 the registration Number of the offending Car was revealed by PW2/Ashok Kumar, but the name of PW2/Ashok Kumar does not find mention in the List of Witnesses annexed along with the Chargesheet.
5. The R3W1/Sub Inspector Pramod Kumar has deposed that though the accident took place on 18.3.2015, the investigations were handed o
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.
The acquittal of a driver in a criminal case does not negate civil liability for negligence established through sufficient evidence.
The sufficiency of evidence and the application of Section 114 of the Evidence Act in establishing the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence on record should be analyzed to ascertain whether it is sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of prepondera....
The court established that the determination of vehicle involvement in accidents relies on the preponderance of probabilities, and the burden of proof lies with the party denying involvement.
The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony suffices to establish vehicle involvement in accident claims, upholding the MACT's award despite insurers' challenges.
The necessity of producing substantive evidence in rebuttal when contesting findings of fact made by lower courts.
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
