Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 106 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 22 October, 1997

Union Of India vs Bhagwati Prasad (Dead) & Ors on 7 March, 2002

We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the conclusion of the Court in the case of Union of India vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) to the effect "It is ultimately found that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle or there is no defect in the vehicle but the accident is only due to the sole negligence of the other parties/agenncies, then on that finding, the claim would go out of Section 110(1) of the Act because the case would then become one of the exclusive negligence of Railways. Again if the accident had arisen only on account of the negligence of persons other than the driver/owner of the motor vehicle, the claim would not be maintainable before the Tribunal" is not correct in law and to that extent the aforesaid decision must be held to have not been correctly decided.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Amrendra Prasad Yadav vs Suit No. 428/14 on 9 February, 2015

We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the conclusion of the Court in the case of Union of India vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) to the effect "It is ultimately found that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle or there is no defect in the vehicle but the accident is only due to the sole negligence of the other parties/agenncies, then on that finding, the claim would go out of Section 110(1) of the Act because the case would then become one of the exclusive negligence of Railways. Again if the accident had arisen only on account of the negligence of persons other than the driver/owner of the motor vehicle, the claim would not be maintainable before the Tribunal" is not correct in law and to that extent the aforesaid decision must be held to have not been correctly decided.
Delhi District Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A M Chandrashekaraiah vs The Union Of India on 29 November, 2021

Motor Vehicle was not negligent, would cause undue hardship to every claimant and we see no justification to interpret the provisions of the Act in that manner. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain application for compensation flows from the provisions contained in Section 110-A read with sub-section (1) of Section 110. Once the jurisdiction is invoked and is exercised the said jurisdiction cannot be divested of on any subsequent finding about the negligence of the tortfeasor concerned. It would be immaterial if the finding is arrived at that it is only other joint tortfeasor who was negligent in causing accident and not the driver of the Motor Vehicle. In our considered opinion the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain application for claim of compensation in respect of an accident arising out of the use of Motor Vehicle depends essentially on the fact whether there had been any use of Motor Vehicle and once that is established the Tribunal's jurisdiction cannot be held to be ousted on a finding being arrived at a later point of time that it is the negligence of the other joint tortfeasor and not the negligence of the Motor Vehicle in question. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the conclusion of the Court in the case of Union of India vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) to the effect "It is ultimately found that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - B Veerappa - Full Document

Amritlal And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 January, 2003

27. No doubt in the case of Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Railway Administration was held liable, but the facts of that case were different in nature to some extent from the facts of the present case, as in that case, negligence on the part of the Railway Administration was found proved as in that case the bus driver was from Tamil Nadu, he was not familiar with this place in Kerala State where the accident occurred, there was no caution board or other indication to show that the road was cutting across a railway line and there were no gates or handrails to alert the passers-by and if the Railway Administration had taken adequate precautionary measures such as erecting hand rails or gates, a severe accident like this would not have taken place, but such type of facts are missing in the present case and there was no negligence on the part of the railway engine driver and in such circumstances, the Railway Administration cannot be held as joint tort-feasors.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Gulab Taj @ Gulab Jan vs The Managing Director on 1 August, 2018

7. Learned Advocate for the claimants relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others reported in 1998 ACJ 342 submits that the two pillion riders though were travelling on the ill-fated motor cycle with the rider of the motor cycle, they did not have control over the motor cycle; since they are not at all at fault, the finding relating to the contributory negligence may not be applicable to the pillion riders, inasmuch as, they have not contributed anything to the accident in question. Said submission cannot be accepted. In the matter on hand, the rider of the two wheeler did not have driving licence. Nothing is produced by the claimants to 14 show that the rider of the two wheeler had got driving licence. Nothing is also placed by the claimants to show as to under what circumstances, the two pillion riders boarded the two wheeler.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K S Dixit - Full Document

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Gauriben Jayeshbhai Majethiya & 6 on 2 March, 2015

We   are   therefore,   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the   conclusion of the Court in the case of Union of   India   vs.   United   India   Insurance   Co.   Ltd.   (supra) to the effect­­   "It   is  ultimately  found  that   there   is  no   negligence   on   the   part   of   the   driver   of   the vehicle or there is no defect in the   vehicle   but   the   accident   is   only   due   to   the   sole   negligence   of   the   other   parties/agencies,   then   on   that   finding,   the claim would go out of S.110(1) of the   Act because the case would then become one   of   the   exclusive   negligence   of   Railways.   Again  if   the  accident   had  arisen   only  on   account of the negligence of persons other   than   the   driver/owner   of   the   motor   vehicle,   the   claim   would   not   be   maintainable   before   the   Tribunal"   is   not   correct   in   law   and   to   that   extent   the   aforesaid   decision   must   be   held   to   have   not been correctly decided.""
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next