Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing M. Anandavalli Amma, Dr. A.R. Reshmy And ... vs Arvind Eye Hospital, Rep. By Its ... on 20 June, 2002

Kattabomman Transport Corporation vs Vellai Duraichi on 30 January, 2004

As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M. Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital (2002-3 L.W. 710), unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. To put it clear, if the appellant-Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person in the motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/ Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Saravanan ...1St on 23 November, 2022

As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M.Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital (2002-3 L.W. 710), unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.431 of 2022 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.27 of 2022 liable to pay compensation. To put it clear, if the appellant- Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person in the motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/ Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant.”
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Managing Director vs Maheswari on 2 July, 2012

As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M.Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital, 2002 (3) L.W. 710, unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. To put it clear, if the appellant-Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person in the motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant."
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

The Divisional Manager vs Ellammal on 4 September, 2012

9. Merely because there is violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules, it is not automatic that in every case, principle of contributory negligence has to be applied mechanically. As observed in the decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in 2002-3-MLJ-220 (M.Anandavalli Amma Vs. Arvind Eye Hospital) that unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motorcycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the offending vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. In other words, to put it clear, the Appellant herein failed to prove that it is because of the addition of one or more persons (three persons in the motorcycle instead of two) the accident had occurred and therefore, the Insurance Company will be liable to make the good the loss. The material placed before the Tribunal show that it was the van driver who had gone to the other side of the road and hit the motorcycle causing the accident.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Jagadeesan - Full Document
1