Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla
|
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166
Motor Accident - Claim for compensation - Proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle , is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Act.
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 - Motor Accident Claim
Motor Accident Claim - Admissibility of document - A party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a party which had proved the same and wherefor consent of the other party has been obtained, the former cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon.
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 - Motor Accident Claim
Motor Accident Claim - Document marked as exhibit - Contents of a document are not automatically proved only because the same is marked as an Exhibit - Once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved - Further held - Once part of document is relied upon by both the parties, it will not be illegal by Tribunal in relying upon other part, irrespective of the contents of the document been proved or not.
Topic(s)-Rashness and Negligence , Document marked as exhibit , Admissibility of document
Important Decision(s)- Document marked as exhibit - Once part of document is relied upon by both the parties, it will not be illegal by Tribunal in relying upon other part, irrespective of the contents of the document been proved or not.