This appeal against a Motor Tribunal order challenging the admissibility of an eye witness statement was dismissed as the ground was found misconceived and baseless.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 201 of 2024
Appellant :- M/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Pratapgarh U.P. Thru. Its Branch Manager Respondent :- Smt. Neetu Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shubham Tripathi
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
police and they had come within 15 minutes. PW-3 has also stated that the site plan is not correct and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. The PW-1 father of the deceased has also stated that when he reached the spot the motor cycle and the deceased was lying on the left side of the road in injured condition and he had taken him to the hospital.
...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Haseen U.
Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment should be set aside on the ground that the site plan was not filed immediately and the eye witness statement was inconsistent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Smt. Neetu Singh
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
