Find a Lawyer

MASTER SAMEER versus FAZAL MEHMOOD

Section 1 Proof of fatal accident damages and reckless driving evidence The absence of eyewitness testimony claiming to be the legacy of the plaintiff claimed that their interest in theft due to the prosecution of the professional and Death due to negligence resulted in accident. Not present at the time of the incident, therefore, it cannot be called an eyewitness to the case while the widow's sister was being subjected to the incident and also suffered injuries at the time of the incident; she was the original and natural witness of the incident but she was the plaintiff. Unchecked that it was found that the vehicle had been driven by the plaintiff in a theft and negligence. The non-examination of the natural witness reflects badly on the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff prepared a copy of the FIR which was filed against the unidentified vehicle and the driver. The FIR is mentioned because the driver did not know the defendant but the vehicle registration number could be OTED and it must be mentioned in the FIR, which was the basis of the case for the FIR to involve the defendant. Was completely silent and the plaintiff had submitted a copy of the charge sheet against the accused, which mentioned the vehicle but also the defendant's arrest and the vehicle, in order to blame his vehicle for the incident. There was not enough evidence to prove that the defendant was driving in the vehicle, as the charge sheet on the seizure was completely silent. Who was killed and recklessly killed and no damage to the vehicle. Climbing on Monday, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was driving by negligence and negligence. immigration advocates contact from Hub Inds Estate lawyer