The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rina Sinha & Ors. vs Ramkesh & Ors. (National Insurance Co Ltd) consisting of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar held that merely because a criminal case is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, negligence cannot be inferred, even on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities.
Facts
This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 was filed by the appellants against the Impugned Award passed by the Ld. Tribunal whereby the Ld. Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
The deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle. Due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident took place which lead to the death. Thereafter, the appellants preferred claim petition before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 and 2 herein, who were also respondent No. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal filed their written statement denying the averments in the petition and further stating that the appellants herein had no cause of action for filing the claim petition and also denied that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 insurance company also filed a separate written statement admitting the insurance policy of the vehicle in the name of respondent No. 2.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that in view of Section 166 of the M.V. Act 1988, it is for the claimant to prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently. The proof of negligence is sine qua non in a petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act 1988.
It further noted that merely because a criminal case is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, negligence cannot be inferred, even on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. Moreover in this case, from the testimony of this witness, his presence at the spot was doubtful.
Judgment ;
The Bench concluded that in the absence of any material on record to show that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 due to which deceased sustained injury in the accident and subsequently died due to injury sustained by him in the said accident, it did not find any infirmity in the impugned award. The same was, therefore, upheld and this appeal was dismissed.
Case: Rina Sinha & Ors. vs Ramkesh & Ors. (National Insurance Co Ltd)
Citation: MAC.APP. 937/2018
Bench: Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Decided on: 18th October 2022
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments