Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

I.O. SI Failed in His Duties, Conducted Lackadaisical, Incompetent Investigation Bereft of Any Purpose in Law: Delhi High Court Criticizes Handling of Accident Claim Investigation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


NEW DELHI, MAY 02, 2024: The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal concerning a motor accident claim, emphasizing the failed responsibilities of the Investigating Officer, SI Subhash Chandra. In a critical observation, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma noted that the officer’s investigation was “absolutely lackadaisical, incompetent and bereft of any purpose in law”, leading to the upheld decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which had previously dismissed the claim for compensation due to insufficient evidence.

The core legal issue centered on the need for concrete proof under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to establish the involvement of a vehicle in an accident for a successful compensation claim. The judgment particularly scrutinized the quality of the police investigation that was pivotal to the claimant’s case.

Baby Yogita Arora, the appellant, claimed she was injured in an accident involving a motorcycle. However, the defendants contested the involvement of their vehicle. The initial claim was dismissed by the Tribunal as the investigation did not convincingly link the alleged motorcycle to the accident, primarily due to the questionable reliability of the evidence presented regarding the vehicle’s presence at the scene.

Detailed Court Assessment: Evidence Evaluation: The court criticized the significant reliance on the testimony of a witness who was neither examined in court nor had his statements sufficiently verified during the investigation.

Investigative Shortcomings: Justice Sharma pointed out the critical failures in the investigation led by SI Subhash Chandra, including not verifying the eyewitness’s details and the absence of a diligent inquiry into the accident’s specifics.

Witness Credibility and Procedural Gaps: The decision underscored the absence of direct evidence from the claimant and procedural lapses in the investigation, which failed to establish a connection between the alleged vehicle and the accident.

Decision of Judgment: The High Court supported the Tribunal’s decision, citing the investigative failures and lack of substantive evidence proving the vehicle’s involvement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, underscoring the crucial role of thorough and competent investigations in legal proceedings for accident claims.

Date of Decision: May 2, 2024

BABY YOGITA ARORA VERSUS NEERAJ KUMAR VISHWAKARMA & ANR

Latest Legal News