NAINITAL A.O. No. 245 of 2006 Smt. Bhagwati & two others (cid:133) v. Meharban Singh
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Sep 2007
- Bench
- B C KANDPAL
Outcome
Remanded
allowed and the matter is remanded back to the claims
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 140, 166, 173
Key paragraphs
- Para 1212. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the claims tribunal for considering the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment as well as the judgment passed by this…
Judgment
the Motor Vehicle Act in accordance with the background available on record. This Court in the aforesaid appeal 4 quashed the finding of the Tribunal holding that the claimant has failed to prove the rash and negligence of driver of the offending vehicle.
The facts and circumstances of the present case are identical. The petition related to the same accident, therefore, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded back for deciding the question with regard to the quantum of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
As two standards have been adopted by the Tribunal in the same matter which arise out of the one accident and the Tribunal has failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending Vehicle, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent at the time of the accident is set aside.
Operative part
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the claims tribunal for considering the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment as well as the judgment passed by this Court in A.O. No. 243 of 2006 decided on 26.09.2007.
The file of the court below be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.
16.06.2008 ASWAL (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: allowed and the matter is remanded back to the claims
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 140, 166, 173.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 26 Sep 2007. The bench was B C KANDPAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.