Deceased driving Activa on wrong side – Pleadings are totally bereft of any details which could even remotely show that the deceased was driving the Activa Scooter on the wrong side of the road – A conjoint reading of the statement of the eye-witness as well as of the driver leaves no manner of doubt that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.6 -- Argument raised by the appellant-Insurance Company, hence rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Contributory negligence – Deceased’s vehicle while exiting the link road had accident on highway -- The driver of the offending vehicle was the only person who could have deposed regarding any negligence on the part of the deceased and he has chosen to keep quiet and rather denied the entire accident -- No evidence remotely show that the accident took place at the intersection -- Appeal devoid of any merit dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2022

Non-involvement of insured vehicle in accident – If the insurance company intended to rebut the evidence led by the claimants on this aspect, then the insurance company should have led positive evidence in this regard – Despite taking a specific plea in the written statement that the vehicle insured by the appellant was not involved in the accident, the insurance company has not led any evidence to support this assertion made in the written statement -- Hence, their pleadings have gone totally unsubstantiated -- Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Pleadings of negligence – Requirement of -- Contention that deceased was not wearing helmet while riding on the pillion of a motorcycle, hence amount payable by the insurer is liable to be reduced on account of contributory negligence of the deceased – Held, Insurance company has neither laid any foundation in the pleadings nor led evidence in support thereof -- Insurance company while filing the written statement did not plead that deceased was not wearing the helmet -- Still further, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove this fact and also failed to raise this point before the Tribunal -- Still further, insurance company has failed to draw the attention of the Court to the cross examination of eye-witness on this aspect -- In such circumstances, the argument of insurance company do not deserve acceptance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Non-framing of issue – Effect of -- No evidence that the car was being plied on hire at the relevant time -- Insurance Company did not plead this fact in its written statement -- Consequently, the Tribunal did not frame any issue on this aspect – Held, Insurance Company has failed to lay any foundation by pleading the aforesaid fact and thereafter, corroborate the same by leading any evidence -- Hence, the contention is rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Non-pleading of defence -- Counsel failed to draw the attention of the Court to such defence in the written statement and any discussion before the Tribunal on this aspect -- Driver of the offending vehicle did not appear in evidence to depose about the manner in which the accident took place -- Counsel also failed to draw attention of the Court to the cross examination of PW2, eye-witness on this aspect – Court expresses inability to accept the argument.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Non-examination of doctor – No doctor has been examined qua the disability suffered by the claimant/appellant -- Award is also silent as to the nature of the injuries which have been suffered by the claimant/appellant -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation, Court deemed it just and proper to remand the present case to the Tribunal to be decided afresh -- Parties shall be at liberty to lead fresh evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.03.2020

Standard of proof -- In motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties -- Standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.

(SC) Decided on: 14.02.2019

Non-pleadings the name of driver in written statement – Effect of -- Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability -- Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle -- To subserve the ends of justice, the insurer shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Gratuitous passengers – Plea of gratuitous passengers has been raised for the first time before High Court in appeal, which cannot be allowed -- If a plea is not taken and a point for consideration is not specifically framed whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, it cannot be urged for the first time in appeal -- Thus, it can be safely concluded that the insurance company cannot plead for exclusion of liability and cannot deny indemnity to insured on the ground of violation of terms of policy. Bachhi Bai’s case 2011 ACJ 2475 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Negligence -- 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