C. JAYACHANDRAN
Zeenath Salam, W/O. P. K. Salam – Appellant
Versus
Najeeb – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
In a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, whether the absence of the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle is fatal is the important question raised in this appeal.
2. The essential facts :-
Autorickshaw bearing No. KL 07 AC 2202 (hereinafter referred to as 'auto A', for short), in which the petitioner/injured was travelling collided with another autorickshaw bearing No.KL 7Z 1162 (hereinafter referred to as 'auto B', for short), with the result, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, found on the strength of Ext.B4 final report, that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of auto B, the offending vehicle and in the absence of the owner and the insurer of that vehicle in the party array, liability cannot be mulcted on the owner and insurer of auto A, in which the injured was travelling. As per the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648], the findings recorded in the charge sheet can be taken as prima facie evidence of negligence
Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sinitha and others
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hansraj Bai V.Kodala and others
Ramkhiladi and another v. United India Insurance Company and another
Sivaji and another v. Divisional Manager
United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Sunil Kumar and another
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ratheesh
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & another
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.