Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Karamjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Gurjant Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of motor accident claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence and negligence. (Para 8) |
| 3. failure to prove negligence based on evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. appeal dismissed due to lack of evidence. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal has been instituted by the appellants-claimants against the award dated 02.06.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short `the MACT’), vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants, was dismissed.
2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that the claimants (widow, mother and minor children) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the MV Act’), claiming compensation on account of the death of one Major Singh.
2.1 It was pleaded that on 13.06.2006, the said Major Singh had left on his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB- 13D-2728 from village Ramgarh for his fields in village Kalihana. At about 8.30 p.m., when he reached near the Government School of the said village, the scooter being driven by respondent No.1-Gurjant Singh, who was coming from the opposite side,
Claimants in motor accident cases must prove their case through cogent and consistent evidence. Where contemporaneous documents contradict the claim petition and witness testimony is unreliable, the ....
Accurate identification of the offending vehicle is essential in negligence claims to establish liability and entitlement to compensation.
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
