Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Dhanesh Kumar And Ors. on 29 March, 1993

Sh. Amra Ram (Aged About 32 Years) vs Sh. Shamsher Singh on 16 February, 2008

11 Not only this, petitioner has placed on record 7 certified copies of records of criminal case as Ex. PW1/2 collectively. Perusal of the certified copies of records of criminal case reveals that criminal law was set in motion vide DD No. 18-A. MLC reveals that Amra Ram sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. Site plan reveals that driver of bus no. DL-1PB-0716 caused the accident with Amra Ram, petitioner. Perusal of site plan reveals that case was registered against the driver of bus no. DL-1PB-0716 U/s 279/338 IPC. Medical records corroborate the version of the petitioner concerning sustainment of injuries and thus it can be said that from the records of criminal case also an inference about rashness and negligence can be drawn on the part of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has not stepped in the witness box for which an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Company Vs. Dhanesh Kumar reported as 1 (1994) ACC 561 Delhi.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Roshni Devi W/O Sh. Vijay Kumar vs Sh. Naresh Kumar on 6 February, 2008

11 Petitioner has placed on record the records of criminal case. Ex. PW1/71 is the FIR which has been lodged at the instance of the petitioner. In the FIR rashness and negligence has been imputed on the driver of the truck, by the petitioner. Other records of the criminal case go to show that respondent no.1 was arrested in the criminal case and was challaned. This fact corroborates the version of the petitioner discussed above. Respondent no.1 has not stepped in the witness box and an adverse inference has to be drawn against him concerning rashness and negligence on his part. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and ors. reported in I (1994) ACC 561. (DHC). 8 12 In view of the above going discussion I have no hitch in observing that petitioner has proved the issue regarding rashness and negligence.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj S/O Shri Vikram vs Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav on 5 July, 2007

to step in the witness box. An adverse inference against him has to be follow. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and others reported in 1 (1994) ACC 561. In view of the above going discussion issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Suit No. 163/06 Issue No. 3 16 Petitioner, in the petition has averred that he sustained multiple fractures on his ribs, fracture on his entire right portion, abrasions wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. That he was taken to Rajasthan Nursing Home, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and from there to R.M.L. Hospital and Ganga Ram Hospital. He has also asserted that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was spent on his treatment, medicines, conveyance and special diet etc. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/X, he has reiterated his assertions of the petition. He has proved his discharge summary of R.M.L. Hospital as Ex. PW1/1 and treatment records with respect to Ganga Ram Hospital as Ex. PW1/2. He has also Continue.....
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj S/O Shri Vikram vs Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav on 5 July, 2007

to step in the witness box. An adverse inference against him has to be follow. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and others reported in 1 (1994) ACC 561. In view of the above going discussion issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Suit No. 163/06 Issue No. 3 16 Petitioner, in the petition has averred that he sustained multiple fractures on his ribs, fracture on his entire right portion, abrasions wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. That he was taken to Rajasthan Nursing Home, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and from there to R.M.L. Hospital and Ganga Ram Hospital. He has also asserted that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was spent on his treatment, medicines, conveyance and special diet etc. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/X, he has reiterated his assertions of the petition. He has proved his discharge summary of R.M.L. Hospital as Ex. PW1/1 and treatment records with respect to Ganga Ram Hospital as Ex. PW1/2. He has also Continue.....
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj S/O Shri Vikram vs Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav on 5 July, 2007

to step in the witness box. An adverse inference against him has to be follow. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and others reported in 1 (1994) ACC 561. In view of the above going discussion issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Suit No. 163/06 Issue No. 3 16 Petitioner, in the petition has averred that he sustained multiple fractures on his ribs, fracture on his entire right portion, abrasions wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. That he was taken to Rajasthan Nursing Home, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and from there to R.M.L. Hospital and Ganga Ram Hospital. He has also asserted that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was spent on his treatment, medicines, conveyance and special diet etc. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/X, he has reiterated his assertions of the petition. He has proved his discharge summary of R.M.L. Hospital as Ex. PW1/1 and treatment records with respect to Ganga Ram Hospital as Ex. PW1/2. He has also Continue.....
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj S/O Shri Vikram vs Sh. Bali Ram Yadav @ Balram Yadav on 5 July, 2007

to step in the witness box. An adverse inference against him has to be follow. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and others reported in 1 (1994) ACC 561. In view of the above going discussion issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Suit No. 163/06 Issue No. 3 16 Petitioner, in the petition has averred that he sustained multiple fractures on his ribs, fracture on his entire right portion, abrasions wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. That he was taken to Rajasthan Nursing Home, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and from there to R.M.L. Hospital and Ganga Ram Hospital. He has also asserted that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was spent on his treatment, medicines, conveyance and special diet etc. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/X, he has reiterated his assertions of the petition. He has proved his discharge summary of R.M.L. Hospital as Ex. PW1/1 and treatment records with respect to Ganga Ram Hospital as Ex. PW1/2. He has also Continue.....
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mact : Delhi vs 2 on 7 September, 2007

Even otherwise, 13 act of hitting the truck from behind is per se an act of negligence. Non- control of the truck by respondent no.1 is evident from the fact that in the crowded area of Naya Bazar, respondent no.1 hit the truck from behind. The act amounts to an act of rashness and negligence and no other nomenclature can be given to the same. Non-stepping in of respondent no.1 in the witness box clinches the issue as an adverse inference has to be drawn against respondent no.1 in this regard in view of the mandate of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and ors. reported in I (1994) ACC 561. Therefore, it is hereby observed that respondent no.1 was rash and negligent while driving. 16 Counsel for the respondents Sh. R.P. Mathur and Sh. Avtar Singh Virmani, requested for complete exoneration of respondent no.3, 5 and 6. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand argued that this being a case of composite negligence, the liability of the respondents (i.e. drivers, owners and insurers of all the trucks) has to be held as joint and several.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Officer : Mact : Delhi vs Sadiq on 22 September, 2007

namely Sh. Sadiq, respondent no.1. has not stepped into the witness box. A presumption is there with respect to official acts having been carried out in a proper manner as envisaged U/s 80 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Adverse inference has to be drawn against Sadiq (driver of Tata Sumo) who has not appeared. So these factors also categorically point out towards rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of Tata Sumo. Postmortem report has been proved as Ex. PW6/A, in which the cause of death is given as antemortem injuries received by blunt force likely to be sustained in a road accident. Sustaining of injuries by other occupants has also been established by medical records, assertions with respect to which, of the petitioners in their affidavits, have gone unchallenged and uncontroverted. Mohd. Sadiq, driver of Tata Sumo has not stepped in the witness box for which an adverse inference has to be drawn. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and ors. reported in I (1994) ACC 561.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Officer : Mact : Delhi vs Sadiq on 22 September, 2007

namely Sh. Sadiq, respondent no.1. has not stepped into the witness box. A presumption is there with respect to official acts having been carried out in a proper manner as envisaged U/s 80 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Adverse inference has to be drawn against Sadiq (driver of Tata Sumo) who has not appeared. So these factors also categorically point out towards rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of Tata Sumo. Postmortem report has been proved as Ex. PW6/A, in which the cause of death is given as antemortem injuries received by blunt force likely to be sustained in a road accident. Sustaining of injuries by other occupants has also been established by medical records, assertions with respect to which, of the petitioners in their affidavits, have gone unchallenged and uncontroverted. Mohd. Sadiq, driver of Tata Sumo has not stepped in the witness box for which an adverse inference has to be drawn. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and ors. reported in I (1994) ACC 561.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Officer : Mact : Delhi vs Sadiq on 22 September, 2007

namely Sh. Sadiq, respondent no.1. has not stepped into the witness box. A presumption is there with respect to official acts having been carried out in a proper manner as envisaged U/s 80 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Adverse inference has to be drawn against Sadiq (driver of Tata Sumo) who has not appeared. So these factors also categorically point out towards rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of Tata Sumo. Postmortem report has been proved as Ex. PW6/A, in which the cause of death is given as antemortem injuries received by blunt force likely to be sustained in a road accident. Sustaining of injuries by other occupants has also been established by medical records, assertions with respect to which, of the petitioners in their affidavits, have gone unchallenged and uncontroverted. Mohd. Sadiq, driver of Tata Sumo has not stepped in the witness box for which an adverse inference has to be drawn. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and ors. reported in I (1994) ACC 561.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next