MAC.APP./716/2019 of THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA & ORS
Parties
- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD (PETITIONER)
- PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA & ORS Through (RESPONDENT)
Cites (17)
- AIR 2012 SC 100 (2012) CONSIDERED
- ANIL RAI versus STATE OF BIHAR (2001)
- ACHUTANANDA BAIDYA versus PRAFULLYA KUMAR GAYEN AND ORS. (1997)
Statutes cited (127)
- code of criminal procedure, 357 (1973)
- indian penal code, 302 (1860)
- code of criminal procedure, 353 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 367 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 462 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 353 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 462 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 483 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 353 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 354 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 235 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 353 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 235 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 353 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 462 (1973)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 09.01.2020.
+ MAC.APP. 716/2019 & CM APPL. 35875/2019
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
versus
PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA & ORS Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
..... Respondents
1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned MACT in MACT No. 465/2017, only on the ground that there were two pillion riders instead of one permitted pillion rider and the same contributed to the motor accident.
2. The statement of the learned counsel for the appellant is not supported
by any evidence to show that the motorcyclist was unable to control the vehicle and as result of double pillion riding and that resultantly crashed into the offending vehicle. It is matter of record that the motorcycle was hit from behind by the offending vehicle, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner.
3. Since there is no evidence to support the contention that the motorcyclist too was driving the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner,
the aforesaid contention is untenable. Accordingly, the appeal, alongwith pending application, is dismissed.
4. The statutory amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be deposited into the ‘AASRA’ Fund created by this Court.
JANUARY 09, 2020
NAJMI WAZIRI, J