Back
NUPUR BHATI
Dalu Teli S/o Kanna Teli – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Lohar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NUPUR BHATI, J.
1. The S.B. CMA No. 1933/2016 has been preferred by the appellants (Owner and Driver) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the judgment and award dated 27.05.2016 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Udaipur (hereinafter as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 1142/2010, whereby the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. to the claimants and held the owner liable to pay the compensation and also the insurance company has been exonerated and given liberty to recover the amount already paid by it from the owner of the vehicle. The S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 83/2021 has been filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement by way of filing an application under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. For the sake of convenience facts of the appeal (S.B. CMA No. 1933/2016) are being taken illustratively and the appellant No. 1 will be referred to as appellant/driver, the appellant No. 2 will be referred to as the appellant/owner, the claimants would be referred to as respondents/claimants when referred to as collectively (and as respond
The standard of proof in motor accident claims is preponderance of probabilities, not strict proof, affecting liability and compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the tribunal to conduct a proper inquiry, appreciate relevant facts, and follow basic principles of law in determining liability and co....
The court established that compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act requires proof of a valid driving license, and the principle of 'pay and recover' applies when the license is not proven.
The court reiterated that in civil claims like those under the Motor Vehicles Act, establishing claims by preponderance of probability suffices, promoting victim compensation over procedural technica....
The burden of proof regarding a driver's valid licence lies with the vehicle's owner, absolving the Insurance Company from liability if not established.
The court upheld the MACT's award of compensation, emphasizing the significance of FIR in establishing negligence and affirming the principle that acquittals in criminal cases do not bind civil liabi....
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
