Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Sarup And Ors. vs Om Parkash And Ors. on 28 November, 2007

Bhim Singh vs Vashishth Tiwari & Ors on 18 December, 2025

13 It has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court in case Sudama Devi and others Versus Kewal Ram and others, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 72 (P&H) that the driver (against whom criminal case was registered) could certainly approach the higher police authorities that he had been falsely implicated in the criminal case and that the accident did not take place on account of his rash or negligent act. It was further held that mere silence for a long time in itself is sufficient to prove that he was negligent in driving the vehicle. Identical law was laid down by our Hon'ble High Court in case Ram Sarup and others Vs. Om Parkash and others, (2008-1) PLR 461.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S P Sharma - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Sarita And Ors on 23 December, 2014

Learned counsel for the appellant has shown photocopy of the report dated 12.03.2011 of the doctor wherein it has been stated that possibility of death of the deceased due to injuries caused by roadside accident seems remote. Significantly, the doctor has failed to say firmly that the cause of death of the deceased are not the injuries received by him in motor vehicle accident. Even otherwise, report of medical authorities with regard to cause of death is only opinionative in nature and cannot supercede the substantive evidence brought on record by the applicants in proof of the occurrence in the form of deposition of Rohtash- PW4, an eye witness and record of criminal Court to show that respondent No.5-Driver of the offending vehicle is facing criminal proceedings. As has been held in Girdhari Lal versus Radhey Shyam, 1993(2) PLR 109, Sudama Devi and others versus Kewal Ram and others, (XLIX-(2008-1) the PLR 444 and Ram Sarup and others versus Om Prakash and others, (XLIX-(2008-1) the PLR 461 pendency of criminal proceedings against driver of the offending vehicle in itself is sufficient to reach a conclusion that he has been negligent in driving the offending vehicle and it is on account of his negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle that life of deceased has been prematurely terminated. In case respondent No.5-Jagdish was not negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident resulting into death of the deceased, he could make a statement before the police officials to that effect. In case the police officials of the concerned police Station were not ready to hear him, he could certainly approach higher authorities to say that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case or the accident did not take place in the manner stated in the first Pooja Saini 2015.01.08 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- FAO No.10454 of 2014 information report. He has chosen not to do so. His silence in itself is sufficient to presume that at the time of the accident, he was negligent and as a result of his negligence, the accident leading to death of Dilbagh Singh took place.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(O&M;)Lacchman Singh vs Binder Singh And Others on 19 December, 2014

I have heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that proceedings before the learned Tribunal being summary in nature, strict rules of evidence were not applicable. Learned counsel refers to Girdhari Lal vs. Radhey Shyam, 1993(2) PLR 109, Sudama Devi and others vs. Kewal Ram and others CXLIX-(2008-1) The NIRMAL KANT 2014.12.24 14:12 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-1732-1993 4 PLR 444 and Ram Sarup and others vs. Om Parkash and others CXLIX-(2008-1) The PLR 461, to contend that even pendency of criminal proceedings against the driver of the offending vehicle have been held to be sufficient to conclude that the driver facing such criminal proceedings was negligent in driving the offending vehicle which resulted into the accident and in the case in hand the first respondent has been convicted by the criminal Court of the offence of negligent driving. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in such a circumstance, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal as regards the occurrence cannot be sustained.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab Etc vs Sharda Kumari Etc on 24 December, 2014

Even otherwise, it has been admitted by respondent Harbhajan Singh while appearing as RW1 before the learned NIRMAL KANT 2015.01.13 10:27 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-2084-1996(O&M) 6 Tribunal that he was facing criminal proceedings under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code on account of death of deceased Chhajju Ram in the occurrence. It is no body's case that Harbhajan Singh made a grievance before the police authorities that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged in the FIR and that he was falsely implicated in the case. From this circumstance alone, a presumption arises that Harbhajan Singh respondent was also negligent in driving the bus in question. Reference in this respect may be made to Girdhari Lal vs. Radhey Shyam, 1993(2) PLR 109, Sudama Devi and others vs. Kewal Ram and others CXLIX-(2008-1) The PLR 444 and Ram Sarup and others vs. Om Parkash and others CXLIX-(2008-1) The PLR 461.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Vinod Rani And Others on 14 December, 2009

So far as the multiplier aspect is concerned, the deceased was a bachelor of 22 years, while his parents, the claimants are aged about 53 years and 50 years. The appellant Insurance Company has relied upon the decisions in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and others, 2006(2) PLR 329, wherein, the age of the claimants - parents was 45 & 50 years and multiplier of 12 was applied, and, in case Ram Sarup and others vs. Om Parkash and others, 2008(1) PLR 461, wherein, FAO No.3738 of 2009(O&M) [4 ] the father was aged 60 years, while the mother was aged 55 years, and in such situation, multiplier of `7' was applied. Taking stock of the decision, cited by the appellant Insurance Company, the multiplier of `10' as applied by the Tribunal in the instant case, where the father is aged 53 years, while the mother is below 50 years, cannot be said to be on the higher side. Thus, the multiplier aspect also need not be disturbed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - A N Jindal - Full Document
1