IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J .
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance company against the award dated 18.03.2025 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and appellant-Insurance company was made liable to pay at first instance and recovery rights were granted to recover the same from respondent No.1 to 4 jointly and severally.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Brief facts of the case are that that on 16.08.2017, Harmanpreet Singh, had gone to Rose Marry School, Balluana when he was coming back alongwith his colleagues namely Jagdeep Singh and Dharmpreet Singh on motor cycle being driven by Harmanpreet Singh and they were being followed by Jagjit Singh (claimant no. 2) father of Harmanpreet Singh, who (father) had gone to school to enquire about the study of Harmanpreet Singh. When they reached on main road, then bus no. PB-03AJ-6874 was coming from backside being driven by its driver respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner without giving any horn/signal struck the motor cycle,
The Motor Vehicles Act promotes just compensation for victims of accidents; procedural technicalities can be bypassed when evidence supports negligence, allowing claim petitions to be converted to en....
The court established that a claimant under the Motor Vehicles Act should be given an opportunity to amend their petition when the tribunal improperly converts the claim from one section to another, ....
Compensation is justified under the Motor Vehicles Act if the accident arose from the use of a vehicle, even with indirect connections, and negligence must be established on the preponderance of prob....
The standard of proof in motor accident claims is the preponderance of probabilities, allowing established ocular testimony to support findings of negligence against the driver.
Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act allows for compensation without the need to prove negligence, reflecting the Act's beneficial nature for claimants.
In claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence cannot be considered; claimants are entitled to compensation without proof of fault.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is not required to plead or establish the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the ....
In claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot raise defenses of negligence against the claimants.
The Claims Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims by vehicle owners under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for personal accident coverage, as they do not qualify as third parties.
Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants are entitled to compensation without proving the victim's negligence, as legislative intent prioritizes expedited resolution over fault determ....
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.