Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Vidyawati Devi And 5 Others on 29 April, 2022

U.P.S.R.T.C. Ghaziabad vs Smt. Neerja Bhatiya And Others on 4 August, 2023

28. In view of the above, the appeal sans merits and is dismissed. The oral cross objection is allowed as per the judgment of this Court passed in F.A.F.O. No.2389 of 2016 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi And 2 Others) decided on 27.7.2016. The earlier amount be paid to the claimants after ascertaining their identity as more than 20 years have elapsed from the date of filing of this appeal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K Thaker - Full Document

Smt. Geeta Yadav And Others vs Prem Roadways Registered And Another on 18 May, 2022

24. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that PW 7 Sohan Lal has stated in his cross-examination that there was no fog at that time and there were lights on the Dhaba and the truck was visible to him due to light of Dhaba and he was standing at the distance of 70 ft from the truck being road between him and the truck and he noticed at the car when he heard voice/sound caused by the accident so Respondent 1 is not at all negligent in this accident but these submissions will not make the car driver to be in any way negligent and cannot give clean chit to the driver of the Gas Tanker because there is a difference between the visibility of a standing vehicle from a place where the person is standing and by a person who is coming driving the vehicle because due to flashlights of vehicles coming from front side the vehicle coming from opposite side cannot generally spot the standing vehicle in the road that too in night-time when there is neither any indicator or parking lights nor blinking lights nor any other indication given on the back of the stationed vehicle, therefore, the driver of the car cannot be held to be in any way negligent rather it is the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Gas Tanker as held inGinni Devi case [Ginni Devi v. Union of India, 2007 SCC OnLine P&H 126 : 2008 ACJ 1572] , Mohan Lal case [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohan Lal, 2006 SCC OnLine All 459 : (2007) 1 ACC 785 (All)] . It is not the case of the respondent that the parking lights of the standing truck were on or there were any other indication on the backside of the vehicle standing on the road to enable the coming vehicle to see the standing truck. The other arguments of the learned counsel for Respondent 3 that the road was sufficient wide road and that the car driver could have avoided the accident, so the driver of the car was himself negligent in causing the accident cannot be accepted when it has already been held that the accident has been caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the offending stationed truck in the busy road.
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - A Tyagi - Full Document

Smt.Somwati And Ors. vs The National Insurance Co.Ltd. And Ors. on 4 August, 2022

12.  Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent has contended that  multiplier of 8  granted by Tribunal is not exorbitant and it would suffice for non grant of amount under the head of non pecuniary loss  and future loss of income. Learned counsel further submits that  in the year of accident in the State of U.P., no future prospect was granted.  Learned counsel further submits that even in the year of accident in 1997, the repo rate  was not 12% and interest granted at the rate of 12 % is exorbitant and requires to be reworked. It is submitted by learned counsel on his oral submission that there is breach of policy as licence of driver was  not produced and relied the judgment of this Court in  F.A.F.O. No.2389 of 2016 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi And 2 Others) decided on 27.7.2016 and in First Appeal From Order No.3381 of 2003 ( Raghuraj Singh Vs. Gyan Singh and other) decided on 8.4.2022.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - K Thaker - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Mahasahar Jahan And Others on 18 August, 2022

There is no dispute that in normal circumstances, in appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Act, 1988, the appellate court can enhance the compensation even if no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been filed by the claimants. However, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Vidyawati Devi (supra) and the observations of the Supreme Court in Surekha (supra) are not applicable in the present case. In the present case, the Tribunal has held that respondent no. 9 which is the insurer of Truck bearing Registration No. U.H.N. 1017 and the appellant are liable to pay compensation in the ratio of 60:40. The respondent no. 9 has no notice of the plea of the appellant to increase the compensation amount. In view of the aforesaid, the failure of the appellant to file a cross-objection in the present case is fatal to his plea to increase the compensation amount. Any increase in the compensation amount would also impose a liability on respondent no. 9 who has no notice of the case to be set-up by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. In view of the aforesaid, it would not be appropriate to increase the compensation amount as prayed by the counsel for the claimants even though it is apparent from the award of the Tribunal that the compensation awarded is quite less. For the aforesaid reason, the plea of the counsel for the appellant to increase the compensation amount is rejected.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Rai - Full Document
1