Legal dictation 105 wpm with punctuation, Allahabad High Court,

Legal dictation 105 wpm with punctuation, Allahabad High Court, #100 wpm legal Dictation
This video/content is only for educational purposes (shorthand dictation).

110 wpm legal Dictation
100 wpm legal Dictation
90 wpm legal Dictation
80 wpm legal Dictation
English Dictation
legal judgement
legal dictation
Allahabad High Court Matter
Allahabad High Court APS Post
shorthand outlines
#shorts
#feeds

In this background, the matter requires to be considered. The appellants herein examined claimant No.1 and P.W. 2 so as to bring home their claim. The driver and the owner did not appear before the tribunal in any of the matters. Unfortunately, this matter was subsequently conducted.


The appellants are the legal representatives rather heirs of the deceased. The appellants have felt aggrieved by the finding of tribunal on the issue of negligence and compensation as far as decision of the tribunal on other issues is concerned they have attained finality.


The accident having taken place and the involvement of car in which claimants were travelling and truck owned by respondent no 2 and insured by respondent no 3 herein is not in dispute. It is necessary to mention a fact here that MACP Case no.166 of 2010 concerning this very appellant who had claimed the compensation for death of his son the insurance company settled the dispute in Lok Adalat on 23.10.2010. One more aspect requires to be mentioned here that out of the said accident one other claim petition was preferred being MACP No.105 of 2008 preferred by Hari Singh and others v. K. Singh and others under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The matter was tried before another tribunal namely Manu Goyal who decided the lis on 25.2.2010 holding the driver of the truck solely negligent and holding all the three respondents herein responsible to compensate the claimants. A mention requires to be made here that this award was placed on the records of the tribunal whose award is impugned in this appeal by the claimants which finds a mention even in the award despite that without discussing the findings recorded by the coordinate tribunal and why the tribunal did not want to follow the same and decide the issue of negligence afresh the tribunal passed the impugned award The issue of negligence was decided in favour of the appellants herein in the earlier claim petition which arose out of the same accident and the Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal nor they have challenged the decision holding the driver of the truck solely negligent in the earlier claim petition and they have as narrated hereinabove settled one another claim concerning the appellant no.1 herein.


The appellants are the legal representatives rather heirs of the deceased. The appellants have felt aggrieved as the tribunal where the claim for accidental death of wife of appellant number one and mother of other appellants was filed decided the issue of negligence once again without following the decision of the coordinate tribunal, The tribunal decided the lis without appreciating that the appellant number one had not come before it to claim damages for injuries incurred by him in the accident. In the alternative it is submitted that even if the issue of negligence was decided again the tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the driver of the truck did not step in the witness box nor did the owner examine any witness to hold the driver of the car to be partly negligent when admittedly the driver of the truck was charge-sheeted. 542 words