Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By Its General ... vs S. Yadagiri @ Yadaiah And Anr. on 22 July, 2004

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Hari Narayan Gupta And Anr. on 15 November, 2006

In order to support his first contention, the learned Counsel has relied on a large number of cases decided by the various Hon'ble High Courts namely Geetha v. Union of India 2005 (1) TAC 207 : ; Union of India v. S. Yadagiri alias Yadaiah 2005 (1) TAC 490 : AIR 2005 AP 28; Sanjay Sampat Rao Gaikwad v. Union of India with Anand Soma Menge v. Union of India ; Ashok Punjab Roachincholkar v. Madhukar Nagorao Sambare 2005 (2) TAC 245, Union of India v. Lakhinmnni 2005 (2) TAC 121; South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. K. Narayana Rao , Muhammed Kunhju v. Union of India 2005 (2) TAC 698 and Union of India v. Smt. Meera Kumari 2005 (2) TAC 873.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 21 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

M.Subramani vs The Union Of India on 14 November, 2017

5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, A.W.1 was examined and 4 documents, Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the case of both parties, found that the claimant was a bonafide passenger and he had sustained injuries in the accident that had occurred on 16.02.2014. The Tribunal, took into consideration the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in II (2005) ACC 324 (Union of India vs. S.Yadagiri @ Yadaiah & another] and came to the conclusion that the burden of proving that the passenger had died or sustained injuries on account of self-inflicted injury squarely rests upon the Railways.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

The Union Of India Owning vs C.Vishalachi on 9 February, 2018

4. The Tribunal, after framing appropriate issues, has decided that the injury suffered cannot be a self-inflicted injury and, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008 (4) MLJ 323, and another judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union of India v. Yadagiri, III 2005 ACC 839, has held that the injury is not self-inflicted and it will not fall under the exemption under Section 124-A of the Act and also that the Railway has not discharged its liability of proving negligence on the part of the deceased. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that it was an untoward incident and awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as per the prevailing rate, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M Govindaraj - Full Document

The Union Of India vs D.R.Govindan on 6 December, 2017

6. The Tribunal on the basis of oral and documentary evidence has found that the claimant suffered injuries due to the accidental fall from the train. Insofar as the plea of the appellant/Railway that it is not an accidental fall, but self inflicted injuries is concerned, it was negatived, as there is no contra evidence to prove the claim or disprove the evidence of the claimant. Relying on a judgment of the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India, South Central Railways V. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah, reported in 2004 ACJ 529 (AP) and also another judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. S.Yadagiri @ Yadaiah & Another reported in III (2005) ACC 839 (AP), the Tribunal has held the burden of proving that a passenger died or sustained injuries on account of self inflicted injury squarely rests upon the Railway.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Govindaraj - Full Document
1