Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Rajbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ram Bhagat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details leading to claim dismissal. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties on negligence. (Para 6 , 7 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court observations on admissibility of evidence. (Para 10 , 18) |
| 4. conclusions of the court regarding negligence and compensation. (Para 22 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
Sudeepti Sharma, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 13.01.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant was dismissed.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.08.2003, at about 4.00 p.m., claimant/appellant was driving his motor cycle No. HR-20-H-8056 to Bus Stand Petrol Pump for obtaining petrol. When he reached near Punjab National Bank, Talaki Gate, Hisar, a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-20-H-0347 came from the back side of the claimant/appellant being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle of the claimant/appellant. As a result of impact, claimant/appellant fell down and suffered in
Negligence in motor accident compensation cases may be established through credible witness testimony and pending criminal charges, overriding initial inadequacies in FIR details.
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
