Venkataswami Motor Service vs C.K. Chinnaswamy And Ors. on 22 January, 1992
They are in the company of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case reported in Ram Saroop v. Balbir Singh 1988 ACJ 500 (Delhi).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.72 seconds)Venkataswami Motor Service vs C.K. Chinnaswamy And Ors. on 22 January, 1992
They are in the company of a learned single judge of this Court in the case reported in Pandit Ram Swaroop v. Balbir Singh (1989) 65 Com. Cases 158.
Prakash Anand Pednekar vs Smt. Sitabai R. Gawas And Others on 21 September, 1994
In 'Pandit Ram Saroop v. Balbir Singh' reported" in (1987) 2 ACC 358, a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that for complying with the provisions of Section 92(2)(b)(ii) and (4), it must be shown that the deceased was a passenger at the time when the accident took place. The facts in the case were that the deceased had boarded the bus at the General Store Bus Stop and his destination point was the Bus Stop at Ordinance Depot, Shakurbasti, Delhi. He had purchased the ticket for the said journey. The bus did not stop at Ordinance Depot Bus Stop and the bus went on ahead and when the deceased was trying to get down, the bus started, as a result of which the deceased fell down and there rear wheel of the bus ran over him and killed him. The learned single Judge held that the deceased was a passenger by virtue of a contract and upon payment of the bus fare since his destination was Ordinance Depot, Shakurbasti, he would have got down at the bus-stop if the bus had stopped there, but from the evidence it was found that the bus did not stop at the bus-stop and therefore he could not remain as a passenger once the bus had gone beyond the Ordinance Depot, Shakurbasti bus-stop.
Angoora Devi & Ors. vs Mahesh Yadav & Ors. on 3 October, 2011
Reliance was also placed by
her upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pandit Ram Saroop
and Anr. vs. Balbir Singh and Ors., 1988 ACJ 500.
Shanmugham vs The Managing Director on 17 June, 2006
It has further been observed in para 8 that object of giving such wide power
is to mitigate the rigour of the technicalities of the law and to achieve the
object of the effective investigation and settlement of disputes. Strictly
speaking, the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable before the
Tribunal. Reference to K. Gopalakrishnan vs. Sankara Narayanan, 1969 ACJ 34
(Madras) and Pandit Ram Saroop vs. Balbir Singh, 1988 ACJ 500 (Delhi), may be
made here. Thus the certified copy of the post-mortem report, paper
No.C.17/2-3, has rightly been taken into consideration by the Tribunal without
examining the doctor who prepared it."
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Annakutty And Ors. on 14 October, 1992
In Pandit Ram Saroop's case 1988 ACJ 500, as a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court was faced with a different situation. There, a person boarded the bus at 'G' stop and the destination point was 'O'. The bus did not stop at the point 'O'. If it had stopped there, the person could have got down. What happened was, the bus went ahead without stopping at the point 'O' preventing the person from getting down at the point of destination. The bus went much ahead and when the person was trying to get down, the bus started and its rear wheels ran over him and killed him. The learned single Judge held that the character of the deceased as a passenger came to an end at the bus stop 'O', for which destination he had obtained the ticket. We are of the view that though this decision held that the deceased was not a passenger at the time of the accident, by a different reasoning, it cannot be said that the deceased was not performing a journey at the time when he was trying to get down from the bus and met with the accident.
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Usha on 7 October, 2025
In Ram Saroop (supra) and
Sundaravalli (supra), the accident occurred while the deceased was
getting down from the bus.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Alapati Venkata Subba Rao And Anr. on 12 December, 1989
In Pandit Ram Saroop v. Balbir Singh 1988 ACJ 500 (Delhi), the passenger of a bus died while alighting from the bus at a place beyond his destination as the bus did not stop at his destination stop. The question that arose in that case is whether the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 5,000/- as per Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) (4) of the Act. The Delhi High Court negatived the contention of the insurance company holding that the insurance company is liable on the principle of a third party liability and its liability is unlimited in that case and the insurance company cannot claim limited liability under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) (4) of the Act. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the accident occurred after the amendment of the Act.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Jagdish Prasad And Ors. on 18 May, 1994
In this connection, he placed reliance on Ram Saroop v. Balbir Singh 1988 ACJ 500 (Delhi). Thus, the learned Judge of the Claims Tribunal did not agree with the insurance company that the respondent-claimant was a passenger of the bus. It, therefore, passed an award for a sum of Rs. 90,000/- payable by Mumtazuddin and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. However, it added that the liability of the insurance company was confined to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and interest thereon. The remaining sum of Rs. 40,000/- was held to be payable by the owner alone.
S.M. Rai And Co. And Ors. vs New India Assurance Company And Ors. on 17 November, 1993
In Pandit Ram Saroop v. Balbir Singh 1987 (II) A.C.C. 358, the case decided by another Single Bench of this Court, the facts were that the deceased had entered the bus and taken a ticket for going to Ordnance Depot, Shakur Basti from General Store bus stop. The bus, instead of stopping at the destination, had proceeded further and the accident had. occurred causing injuries to the deceased. It was held that the deceased ceased to be a passenger as soon as the bus had reached the destination and mere fact that the deceased had not alighted from the bus would not mean that he continued to be a passenger when the bus, after reaching the destination, had proceeded further.