Therefore, this breach of condition of policy of insurance being "fundamental breach", the insurer of the offending vehicle, cannot be compelled to indemnify the Opponent No. 2. Therefore, "to pay and ...

Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:20013,MANU/MH/2853/2024. 1. The issue involved in this appeal is pay and recovery order passed by the Tribunal and contributory negligence of the deceased.

Ahmednagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 22 Mr. K.D. Mote appearing for respondents no.01 and 02. He has proved the contents of the injury certificate. says that the said accident was caused ...

This is contrary to what has been stated in the FIR.

1. This appeal is by the Insurance company challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chintamani, ['Tribunal', for short] in MVC No. 19/2007.

It is significant to note that the complaint was lodged by the father of the claimant on 19.1.2007 whereas the claim petition was filed by the minor claimant represented through his mother, natural ...

Second witness of the claimant is Balasaheb Bongane CW-3. He states that he was proceeding on his motorcycle and witnessed the offending jeep dashed against motor cycle of the deceased Dattarao. He ...

1. Present appeal has been filed by the original respondent No. 2 challenging the Judgment and Award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 112 of 2012 dated 06.01.2017 by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims ...

He has stated that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car referred to above. He had not given any complaint to the police. He did not take the injured persons to the hospital.

The burden of proof is on the claimants. Same may be discharged on preponderance of probabilities. The insurer may lead independent evidence in disproof of the claim or it may point out that the ...