Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing A. Anandan vs Abdul Azeez And Anr. on 17 October, 2003

Smt.Marry Josphine vs Liberty Gic Ltd on 13 April, 2023

10. The sketch and spot panchanama are very much clear that the accident took place at zebra crossing. The deceased was pedestrian. The rider of the motor cycle was not examined, where the owner is placed exparte. The owner has replied to the notice issued under section 133 of M.V.Act that his son was driving the vehicle and had no proper DL. In this regard the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the SCCH-20 10 MVC No.4574/2022 authority in A.Anandan Vs Abdul Azeez and others reported in 2004 ACJ 1091, of High court of Karnataka, where discussing the fact that the pedestrian sustained injuries by the motor cyclist, and neither the motor cyclist nor any other evidence was produced by the respondent, held that the motor cyclist was solely responsible for the accident. This judgment is aptly applicable to the instant case, since the motor cycle has hit the said Sebastine Patrick, who has failed to put his appearance and give proper evidence. Accordingly holding that there is complete negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle i.e., motor cycle, the above issue is answered in affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Venugopal.M vs Mohsina Taj on 7 June, 2024

1.2012 ACJ 1459 (SC) (DB) (Manoj Rathaur Vs. Anil Raheja and others) 2.2014 ACJ 627 9SC)(DB) (Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,) 3.2015 ACJ 721 (SC)(DB) (Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir and others) SCCH-14 6 MVC.1367/2022 4.2022 AAC 608 (J&K) (National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Mohd.Anwar Bhat and others) 5.2004 ACJ 1091 (KANT)(DB) (A.Anandan Vs. Abdul Azeez and others)
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Rajappa vs Liberty General Insurance Co on 8 September, 2020

In support of the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of A.Anandan v. Abdul Azeez and others (2004 ACJ 1091). But, the respondent No.1 has contended that the petitioner crossed the road in a point where pedestrian cross was not permissible and therefore, the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the petitioner.
Bangalore District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Mahesh K M vs Sri G Ashok on 10 November, 2021

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records. It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained injuries on account of road traffic accident on 28th July, 2011. Perusal of Exhibit P4-spot sketch, would 6 disclose that the clamant was crossing the road where there is no zebra crossing or pedestrian walk and that too he was crossing the road upon median in the Highway. Though the respondents have not adduced any evidence with regard to liability, however, the perusal of Exhibit P4 itself would be res ipsa loquitur where it shows that the claimant himself has invited accident by crossing the Highway on the median and therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal fastening liability in an extent of 25% on the claimant is just and proper and do not call for interference in this appeal. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KIRAN v. SAJJAN SINGH AND OTHERS reported in 2014 ACJ 2550 and the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of A. ANANDAN v. ABDUL AZEEZ AND OTHERS reported in 2004 ACJ 1091 wherein the facts of the case referred to above are distinct from the facts of the case on hand. In the present case, perusal of Exhibit P4-spot sketch itself would clearly establish the fact that the claimant was crossing the Highway through median and as such, invited the accident himself and therefore the judgments 7 referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be made applicable to the case on hand.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.M.C.Premkumar vs M/S Cholamandalam Gic Ltd on 23 November, 2022

In the instant case also, though the respondent took the defence that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the accident, nothing is shown by the respondent either by examining the driver or by leading any evidence. Hence applying the ratio laid down in the above case and for the reasons discussed above, this court is of the considered opinion that there is negligence on the part of the offending vehicle and thus the above issue is answered in affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.Rangaswamy vs M/S Future General India on 23 November, 2022

In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of division bench of our Hon'ble SCCH-20 21 MVC No.1924/2021 High court of Karnataka in MFA No.2591/2001 in 'Anandan Vs Abdul Azeez and others' reported in '2004 ACJ 1091', where the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka, has held that "neither motor cyclist examined nor any other evidence was produced by the defendant in order to show that the pedestrian was crossing the road without caring for traffic and in the such a situation, it was held that the motor cyclist was solely responsible for the accident". This judgment is aptly applicable to the instant case on hand, where the respondent though took the defence that the petitioner was not caring for traffic, but did not examine any witness on their behalf nor tried to summon the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore in the given situation this court can easily come to the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the motorcylist, who ought to had taken care of the persons moving in the road. Therefore in the absence of the proper evidence by the respondent, who has relied upon assumption, this court can easily come to the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle SCCH-20 22 MVC No.1924/2021 chandraiah in causing the accident and thus the above issue is answered in affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next