Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Indrani Raja Durai & Ors vs Madras Motor & General ... on 16 January, 1996

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Mohan Lal And Anr. on 31 March, 2006

Here the position was altogether different. On the fateful night the truck was parked in the middle of the road and it cannot be presumed by any of the drivers that some obstruction was there in the middle of the road and more so when a vehicle was coming from a different direction and it flashed the light the driver of Fiat car had no way but to give him side and by doing so Fiat car came in the mid of the road where the truck was parked without any indicator or sign and collided with it. The case of Indrani Raja Durai v. Madras Motor & Genl. Ins. Co. , is also not applicable in the present circumstances. There appears no justification for making the apportion of the amount between the owner of both the vehicles.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Mahboob And Ors. on 30 March, 2006

4. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the vehicle No. UP-15D/0167 was driven rashly and negligently by the driver and the responsibility of negligent and rash driving cannot be fastened on the driver of the other vehicle. He also lost control of the vehicle when the driver of Bus No. UP-15 D-8167 came from the other direction. He ought to have seen that this could involve the Bus in an accident with the Bus coming from the opposite direction. He appears to have thrown all caution to the winds and met with an accident, there can be no justification for blaming the driver of the vehicle, who took care to swerve the vehicle, as would be evident from the site plan prepared in the course of investigation by the police. The driver of the Bus No. UP-15D-0167 was wholly responsible for the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Bus No. UP-15D/1735. The entire compensation has, therefore, to be borne out by the owner of the Bus No. UP-15D/1067, as was held by the learned Tribunal. However, from the side of appellant, reliance has also been placed on the principles of law enunciated in the case of Smt. Indrani Raja Durai and Ors. v. Madras Motors & General Insurance Co. and Ors. 1 (1996) ACC 335 (SC) : 1996 (2) TAC 77 SC wherein the responsibility for making the payment of compensation was shared between the two vehicles in which the motorcycle of the victim was kicked. The facts of this case are altogether different.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Narain Sah vs Oriental Fire And Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. And ... on 3 August, 2005

11. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company, respondent No. 1, submitted that in view of findings of this Court in respect of issue No. III it would be relevant to find out whether the bus in question or the victim had also contributed by their negligence to the occurrence which led to death of the victim. According to learned Counsel for the insurance company, the owner and driver of the bus should have been made parties because they permitted travelling on the bus contrary to the manner prescribed by Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, they contributed to the accident. It was further submitted that on evidence it has come that the bus was stopped without going to the flank of the road and soon after it was stopped, the truck dashed against the bus coming from the same direction. In such circumstances, it was submitted that liability of the bus owner and of the insurance company needs to be apportioned because there was negligence on the part of owner and driver of the bus as well as of the victim. The judgment in the case of Indrani Raja Durai v. Madras Motor & Genl. Ins. Co. , was relied upon in support of the proposition of law that in a case of contributory negligence the compensation amount may be apportioned.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - S K Singh - Full Document

Anita Devi And Ors. vs Jai Narayan Kumar Singh And Ors. on 16 April, 2004

In the case of Indrani Raja Durai v. Madras Motor & Genl. Ins. Co. , the Apex Court, considering the case in which a person driving motor cycle on highway, in order tc save himself from being sandwiched between a car and a speedy bus, took extreme right and in doing so, hit the left bumper of the bus and died at the spot, held that negligence can be apportioned as 60 per cent and 40 per cent and set aside the judgment of the High Court which had reversed the finding of Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation on the ground that the driver of the bus was equally negligent and awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000 with interest to the claimants. As in the present case, I find that appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation and the court below held deceased equally responsible for his death in the accident because at the time of accident, he was sleeping by the side of the road but still observing, that the deceased died in accident by a vehicle which was insured with respondent No. 3, granted compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellants with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - M L Visa - Full Document
1