Parking in the middle of road – Tribunal adverted to the legal presumption against the driver of the Gas Tanker of having parked his vehicle in a negligent manner in the middle of the road -- Site Plan reinforces the version -- Site Plan filed along with the chargesheet does not support the finding recorded by the High Court that the Gas Tanker was not parked in the middle of the road – Approach of the High Court in reversing the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal has been very casual, if not cryptic and perverse – Finding of the Tribunal restored.

(SC) Decided on : 09.02.2018

Proof of – Third party – Public Service Vehicle – In case of passenger travelling in a Public Service Vehicle; negligence of driver or owner may not be required to be proved by him to maintain his claim; being covered under Section 147(1)(b)(ii).

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Non-lodging of FIR – Effect of -- Immediately after the accident, on the same day, brother of the deceased has lodged DDR -- In the said DDR, it has been mentioned that the accident has taken place by chance when the deceased was crossing the road and nobody is at fault for this accident -- On the basis of this DDR, the inquest proceedings were carried out – Entire case of the appellants-claimants is based on the statement of PW-2 / “M” – No material on record to show that the claimants have moved any application to the police to take up the investigation of the case and to join “M” in the investigation -- PW-2/ “M” was familiar to the family members of the deceased and he also attended his 'Bhog' ceremony -- He had ample opportunity to disclose negligence of driver but he never came forward with any such version prior to make the statement in the Court – In these circumstances the presence of PW-2 / “M” at the time of occurrence is not established – Claimant failed to prove rash and negligence of Bus driver for causing accident – Claim petition rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2016

Triple riding on two wheeler/ motor cycle -- Triple riding may be a traffic offence but mere triple riding on a two wheeler/motorcycle without any further proof of negligence on the part of the motorcyclist contributing to the accident, is no ground to held the occupants of the motorcycle to be contributory negligent for the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2016

Driver dashed against a culvert -- Comprehensive policy – Claimant income was more than Rs.8,000/- per month and he could not have maintained the petition under Section 163-A – High Court take it that the petition is filed under a wrong premise, for, as far as the passenger is concerned, the accident speaks of the negligence of the driver in a typical res ipsa loquitur situation -- Negligence of the driver is writ large and the passenger ought to have been provided for injuries suffered in the accident – High Court treat it as a petition u/s 166 of the Act and allow for the retention of the award against the insurer.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Registration of FIR -- Mere registration of the criminal case does not establish his negligence -- Negligence has to be established from the evidence adduced before the Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2016

Registration of FIR – Non-examination of driver -- Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant became unconscious and thus, he could not get the FIR registered promptly – Claimants also proved on record the complaints, wherein he has represented to the higher authorities pleading his false implication in the FIR registered against him -- Offending motorcycle was carrying four passengers, i.e. the driver, two ladies and one child -- Therefore, it was difficult for the offending driver to control the vehicle at the time of the accident -- Lastly, the offending driver did not step into the witness box to rebut the factum of negligence attributed to him -- Under these circumstances, it remains unproved that the accident was caused due to the contributory negligence of both the drivers.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2016

Registration of FIR against claimant – Proof of -- Mere registration of the FIR against the claimant is not sufficient to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2016

Author of FIR has not been examined -- Driver of the offending bus was reversing the bus in order to park the same at its counter and during that process, the left side of the bus hit the deceased which ultimately resulted into his death – Held, it was the duty of the driver to take the help of cleaner of the bus while parking the bus -- Driver has not stated that he took the help of cleaner of the bus or anyone else while reversing the bus -- Since he has not taken due precaution and as such the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2015

Proof of -- Death of passenger -- Claim petition – An act of a driver dashing against a tree must mean that there had been a negligent act only on the part of the driver -- Instance where a driver could plead exoneration of such a responsibility shall be when there is a mechanical failure but there again the liability of the owner would still be exposed -- A vehicle is bound to be kept in a state of repair and if there was a mechanical defect that resulted in accident, it should still be seen as want of care by the owner that would make him liable and consequently, the insurer is liable for any claim arising out of the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Proof of -- Minimal requirement is that the death or injury is by the use of a motor vehicle – Death that as resulted is a typical illustration of a res ipsa loquitur situation and no further proof for negligence is necessary than merely statement of fact of death or injury -- This is not a claim by the driver or owner of the vehicle, which alone would be barred -- The claim is by a passenger in a case where there is a comprehensive insurance cover for risk to a passenger -- Owner of the vehicle held to be liable the same way as the driver is and this shall be channelled to the liability of the insurer as a person who is bound to indemnify the insured.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Conversion of petition from section 163-A to 166 of M.V. Act -- Accident indeed reflects a res ipsa loquitur situation when a person was not careful in his driving -- Fatal accidental fall and careful driving would be tautological -- Negligence of the motorcyclist as established and the case would be required to be examined under Section 166 of the Act itself, no matter that the petition is under Section 163-A of the Act -- Before conversion is made, all that has to be seen is whether any further evidence was necessary to consider a plea of negligence which might require to be proved u/s 166 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2014

Proof of -- Package policy – Pillion rider – There was a package policy that covered risk for pillion rider as well -- Two wheeler fell down by the inability of the driver of the motor cycle to keep a proper balance and it must be taken as negligence of the driver.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2014