Proof of -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- 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

Filing of charge-sheet -- Proof of accident -- Copy of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. and the charge framed by the Court is available on record, which shows that respondent-driver has been charge sheeted for causing the injuries while driving the tractor in question in a rash and negligent manner – Charge-sheet establishes that pillion rider has also suffered the injuries in this very accident – Driver of the tractor has stepped into the witness box and admitted that he is facing the trial in the criminal Court for causing this accident -- He also admitted that on the date of the accident he was driving the tractor -- He has simply denied the accident and deposed that no accident has taken place with his tractor -- Bald statement of respondent-driver cannot rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the claimants on the mode of negligence and involvement of the vehicle.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Doctrine of estoppel -- Award of Tribunal – Death of cleaner of truck no. HR-38P-8270 and in award, the Tribunal had held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending truck No. HR-73-0804 – No appeal by insurance company -- That judgment operates as estoppel against the Insurance company.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Version in DDR – Change of stand in statement – Evidential value of -- In DDR, the claimant stated that the accident had taken place by chance and there was no fault on part of anyone -- Only evidence available with regard to the cause of accident on the record is the affidavit of the claimant stating therein that his motorcycle was hit from behind by the offending car rashly, negligently and in a high speed -- Neither driver of car on his own stepped into the witness box to controvert the deposition of the claimant nor the appellant-insurance company made any effort to examine him to elicit that there was no element of rash and negligent driving involved in the accident – Offending car held liable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Mechanical defect -- A bare perusal of the FIR substantiates the plea of the claimants and not of the driver – Driver has not pleaded in reply that due to road condition the bus jumped all of a sudden, and has also suppressed the fact that the bus initially dashed a stationary tractor -- Thus the version of the driver is not reliable -- Mechanic has categorically stated that the belt of springs could have been broken in case brakes were suddenly applied -- Thus it appears that the bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and initially dashed the stationary tractor and then a eucalyptus tree -- In the circumstances there is no escape from the conclusion that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver -- Apart from that merely a mechanical failure is not enough to exonerate the Transport Undertaking from its liability in the absence of evidence being adduced that the vehicle was maintained properly.

(SC) Decided on: 15.12.2015

Negligence of driver -- 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 -- Claim petition in Motor Vehicle Accident case – Delay in FIR -- Effect of -- Delay of four days in registering the FIR is of no consequence -- Only on this ground, it cannot be held that the claimants have not proved the rash and negligent driving of driver.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Proof of -- Driver appeared into witness box and stated that no accident took place but driver and owner have not led any evidence that they have filed any complaint or representation to the higher officers for their false implication -- There is also nothing that any revision has been filed against the charges -- Otherwise also, causing the death while reversing the vehicle without taking any precautions itself shows rash and negligent driving.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015