Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (1.73 seconds)
Documents citing P.S. Somaiah And Anr. vs The Director, Bangalore Diary And Ors. on 1 January, 2003

Rajamma W/O Late Manikappa Koora And Anr vs Mallanna @ Mallikarjun S/O Chandrappa & ... on 13 January, 2020

It is interesting to note that the Division Bench while considering the applicability of Sri P.S.Somaiah's case has clearly held that the judgment in Sri P.S.Somaiah's case was in the nature of observations. In fact the Division Bench has gone on to say that the observations made by the earlier Division Bench in Sri P.S.Somaiah's case were in the context and in the facts of that particular case and no law as such is laid down.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Master Vivek K S vs Sri Gajendra C N on 2 July, 2014

In the decision reported in 2005 ACJ 1359 (in the case of P.S.Somaiah & another Vs. Director, Bangalore Dairy & Others) apart from rider, there were three grown up children as pillion riders and rider of motorcycle while overtaking a milk tanker had gone to wrong side of road and collided with a van coming from opposite direction. In the circumstances, a Division Bench of this court has held that rider of motorcycle was guilty of contributory negligence.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N Ananda - Full Document

Thippayya S/O Raganna vs Srinivas S/O Raganna Setty And Ors on 14 December, 2021

In 12 the case referred to by the Tribunal in P.S.Somaiah and another vs. Director, Bangalore Diary and others, reported in AIR 2003 KAR 258, it was specifically established by the facts on record therein that the rider of the motorcycle had not taken precaution in respect of incoming motorcycle and was on a wrong side while over- taking the motorcycle. In the instant case, no such evidence of any nature whatsoever is produced establishing the cause of accident being the triple-riding.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... vs M. Ramesh on 1 February, 2007

In yet another decision P.S. Somaiah and Anr. v. Director, Bangalore Dairy and Ors. , the Karnataka High Court considered a case where four persons travelled in a motor cycle, excepting the rider of the motor cycle, the other three pillion riders were children. In the accident, two children succumbed to injuries. While elaborately examining the aspect of negligence, with reference to the Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court observed that, when more than one person on the pillion or number of children loaded on two wheeler whether in front or in the arms, amounts to breach of provision and total callousness on the part of the motorcyclist. The Court in the absence of cross appeal by the respondent, was constrained to confirm the finding of the Tribunal, fixing contributory, negligence on the motor cyclist and the owner of lorry. The copy of the judgment was directed to be forwarded to the Government for strict compliance of the directions.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Shri Manjunath vs Ahri Anantha @ Ananthanarayana on 26 April, 2019

19. The counsel for the respondent has relied the decision reported in AIR 2003 Karnataka 258 in case of P.S.Somaiah and another Vs. The Director, Bengaluru Diary and others and 2009 ACJ 700 in case of Durai Raj and others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd and others. In which it is observed that motorcyclist had two pillion riders sustained injuries and motor cyclist admitted that he did not posses a valid driving 11 SCCH-18 MVC 331/2016 licence---Pillion riders with the knowledge of this fact had chosen to travel on the vehicle, three persons were riding on the motor cycle against the permitted capacity of two. The injured has also contributed to the cause of accident.
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K Yellappa vs N Manju on 13 July, 2018

The contention of the insurer is to the effect that violation of Section 128 of the Act would disentitle the claimant for any relief in so far as absence of adhering to safety measures statutorily incorporated ought to be viewed strictly so as to penalize non-adherence by disallowing claims. While the argument of claimant on the other hand is that in view of settled law, unless the non-adherence to statutory safety measures was demonstrably a contributing factor to the accident and that the nexus ought to be established between the statutory infraction and the accident, the question of attributing contributory negligence would not arise. A bare perusal of the judgments referred to and relied upon by the claimant clearly lays down the law that there has to be a nexus between the statutory infraction and the accident. The decision in M.F.A.No.6360/2008 other connected matters is strictly on the point and covers the fact situation. It is relevant to note that the 21 decision relied upon by the insurer in P.S.Somaiah's case has also been distinguished by observing that no law is laid down in P.S.Somaiah's case and the observations were to be treated as mere observations and not as laying down the law as regards liability. The principle of law also in the case of Bharma Kallappa Murashetti, on similar facts also point to a similar conclusion.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - S S Yadav - Full Document

Smt. Aasia vs Karamveer Singh on 19 July, 2016

Counsel for insurance has argued that the deceased persons were indulging into triple riding and hence, there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of motorcycle of deceased. Though, it is a settled law that there cannot be any presumption about contributory negligence and contributory negligence, if any, is to be proved by way of positive evidence, but in "P. S. Somaiah and Anr. Vs. The Director, Bangalore Diary and Ors., AIR 2003 Kiran Bansal P.O­MACT (North­East) MACT No. 29/11,30/11 & 34/11 Page 7/19 Kant 258", wherein injured was riding alongwith his two sons and daughter i.e three children and was also riding on the wrong side of the road and was driving rashly it was held that in view of Section 128 of M. V. Act, traffic rules should be followed in strict sense and heavy penalty should be imposed on breakers of law.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In 1. Smt.Kemparajamma vs Smt.K.R.Raghavi on 31 January, 2015

Even it is no way disclosed that, deceased Gopalakrishna had gone to nature call by stopping vehicle on the foot path. This goes to show that, PW.3 and 4 have given improved evidence. Even riding the motor cycle along with 2 pillion riders is also reason for the contribution to the rash and negligent driving. Because in decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in 2005 Scch - 11 27 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 ACJ 1359 (P.S.Somaiah and another Vs. Director, Bangalroe Dairy and others) where it is held as under
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next