Back
JASPREET SINGH
Chief General Manager – Appellant
Versus
Sangeeta Yadav – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident involving motorcycle and bus (Para 2 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. arguments on negligence and accident denial (Para 3 , 4 , 9 , 15) |
| 3. court's analysis on evidence and negligence (Para 5 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. conclusion dismissing the appeal (Para 6 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Heard Shri Ram Ratan, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the claimants respondents No1. to 5.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 25.02.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad in Claim Petition No.24/2021, wherein on account of death of one Indrasen Yadav, the claimants-respondents have been awarded a sum of Rs.41,63,934/- along with 7% interest.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the award has submitted that in respect of the accident in question, the FIR was lodged with two days' delay. It is further urged that since a specific plea was taken by the appellant that the accident did not occur from the bus belonging to the appellant No.1, therefore, the delay in filing the FIR assumes significance. It is also urged th
The standard of proof in accident claims is preponderance of probabilities, but concrete evidence of involvement and negligence is necessary for a successful claim.
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
