Back
MARLI VANKUNG
Smti Pramila Rajbongshi, W/O Sir Dhano Ram Rajbongshi – Appellant
Versus
Md Unisor Rahman, S/O Lt. Inhil Ali – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Marli Vankung, J.
Heard Mr. S.C. Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company.
2. The instant appeal is challenging the Judgment dated 12.08.2016 delivered by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 419 of 2012, wherein, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claimed made by the claimant for compensation on account of the death of her son in a motor vehicle accident. The learned Tribunal held that the claimed petition is not maintainable under Section 166 M.V. Act since the claimant has failed to established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
3. Brief facts of the cases as projected by the claimant was that on 21.12.2011, at about 5:20 P.M, at Maranjana Industrial Area, while the Tipper vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01-Y-5559 was filling earth and her deceased son Jogen Rajbongshi was keeping accounts of the same, suddenly the vehicle started moving backwards and the deceased fell down beneath of wheel of the said vehicle and died on spot.
4. The claimant file her claim application and st
In motor vehicle accident claims, the absence of eyewitnesses does not preclude establishing negligence; the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities.
The claimant must establish negligence for a successful claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, and the Tribunal's reliance on insufficient evidence can lead to erroneous judgments.
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove rashness and negligence in claims under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the applicability of res ipsa loquitur in determining n....
Claimant is the mother of the deceased as such she is entitled to get the filial consortium for the death of her son.
The court clarified that the burden of proof in motor accident cases lies on the Claimant to establish causation based on preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.
The court determined that despite initial perceptions of murder, the evidence supported the incident as a motor accident, warranting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where it may not be possible for the claimant to discharge the burden of proving neg....
The court clarifies the burden of proof in accident claims, stating that evidence must meet the standard of preponderance of probability rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
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
