Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 424 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Mohammed Siddique vs National Insurance Company Ltd on 8 January, 2020

Branch Manager vs Murugesan ..1St on 11 December, 2020

15.In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in all the three appeals reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC 161 SC (Mohammed Siddique and another vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others) cited supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in a case of riding triples in two wheeler, it has to be proved that the rider of the two wheeler also contributed to the negligence. Due to statutory violation, the contributory negligence cannot be fixed automatically. In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the accident has occurred when a car hit the motorcycle from behind. In view of the same, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle must be proved. In the present case, the accident has occurred due to head on collision in the Highways in the middle of the road and admittedly three persons travelled in the two wheeler at the time of accident. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above does not advance the case of the 1st respondent in all the appeals. Considering the 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.572 to 574 of 2014 entire materials on record, it will be just and equitable, if 30% contributory negligence is fixed on the part of the 1st respondent in all the three appeals. The 1st respondent in all the three appeals are entitled to receive only 70% of the compensation awarded and the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay 70% of the compensation.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

P.Saravanan vs Oriental Structural Engineering ... on 19 January, 2021

23. Dealing with somewhat similar cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Mohammed Siddique and Another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2020 (1) TN MAC 161 (SC) held that in absence of any evidences to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. There the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the finding of the Tribunal and the High Court and held that 10% contributory negligence cannot be justified.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

P.Saravanan vs Oriental Structural Engineering ... on 19 January, 2021

23. Dealing with somewhat similar cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Mohammed Siddique and Another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2020 (1) TN MAC 161 (SC) held that in absence of any evidences to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. There the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the finding of the Tribunal and the High Court and held that 10% contributory negligence cannot be justified.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya And ... vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14 December, 2021

121. The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 8 based on the age of the claimant no.2, the mother of the deceased. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal committed an error inasmuch as the multiplier has to be chosen bearing in mind the age of the deceased. The learned counsel placed reliance on Mohammed Siddique & Another V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, reported in 2020 (3) SCC 57.
Allahabad High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 5 - K Pahal - Full Document

Hemkant Kaushik vs Upender Singh And Ors on 20 April, 2026

72.All the respondents are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation. The offending vehicle was insured and the fact of the insurance is undisputed. The company has taken a plea that the bike driver was not having any driving license. That pleas is not relevant in a compensation case in respect of the pillion rider. Moreover, the law in this regard is settled. Even it is presumed that biker was not having any driving license, it is separate offence for which the biker can be prosecuted. It does not dilute rash driving on the part of insured / offending vehicle. Reference in this regard can be made in the case titled as Mohd. Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 3 SCC 57, the relevant extract is reproduced here-in-under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hemkant Kaushik vs Upender Singh And Ors on 22 April, 2026

72.All the respondents are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation. The offending vehicle was insured and the fact of the insurance is undisputed. The company has taken a plea that the bike driver was not having any driving license. That pleas is not relevant in a compensation case in respect of the pillion rider. Moreover, the law in this regard is settled. Even it is presumed that biker was not having any driving license, it is separate offence for which the biker can be prosecuted. It does not dilute rash driving on the part of insured / offending vehicle. Reference in this regard can be made in the case titled as Mohd. Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 3 SCC 57, the relevant extract is reproduced here-in-under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd Sabuddin vs Mohd Zakir on 8 October, 2024

41. This Court has perused the record and found that no driving license or insurance of the claimant‟s vehicle were placed on record. Therefore, applying the aforementioned case laws Mohd. Siddique vs. National Insurance Co. (Supra) as well as Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh, (Supra), this Court is of the view that mere absence of driving license and vehicular insurance does not amount to contributory negligence on the part of the claimant despite being a punishable offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the same has no impact on the accident and the grievous injuries caused to the claimant.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next