The parents of a motor cyclist, killed in a bus accident, sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the victim himself was negligent because he did not blow horn while overtaking the vehicle. Acting on an appeal by the claimants, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that such reasoning was fallacious. It said that it was evident that the bus driver signalled at the last moment. The driver was therefore held to be negligent and compensation was awarded to the claimants (Mansa Devi and another vs State of H.P. and another).
In a rape case, the high court gave the accused the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him because one of the lacunae in the prosecution, the court said, was that there was no opportunity to question the doctor who examined the victim. Disagreeing with the court, the Supreme Court held that the victim’s statements were sufficient in the case and therefore, a mere non-examination of the doctor should not be fatal to the prosecution (State of Madhya Pradesh vs Dayal Sahu).
The landlord filed an eviction petition for bona fide requirement of the premises for parking his car. The tenant pleaded that the car registration certificate produced by the landlord had a different address. Rejecting the tenant’s contention, the Madras High Court held that a different address on the certificate did not indicate that the landlord didn’t own the car. It further said that it had been proved that the landlord had been parking his car on the road and therefore, there was sufficient evidence to show that he needed the premises (S. Loganathan vs Manmal Surana).
SOLON
