Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.86 seconds)
Documents citing Venkataswami Motor Service vs C.K. Chinnaswamy And Ors. on 22 January, 1992

Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Maheshbhai Bhagvatlal Joshi on 20 February, 2014

Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Venkataswami Motor Service v. C. K. Chinnaswamy and others, 1989 ACJ 371, wherein a lady passenger was alighting from the front exit of the bus and her one foot was on the footboard and other on the road when the conductor blew the whistle and the driver moved the bus and the lady was knocked down and dragged along by the body of the bus and sustained fatal injuries. On behalf of the respondents, it was pleaded that there was no bus stop at the place of accident and she jumped from the running bus. The court held that the crew of the bus was negligent for the accident which occurred at a place where the bus had stopped and it was not a bus stop.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

M. Jaganathan vs Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. on 3 September, 1997

14. Further in Venkataswami Motor Service v. C.K. Chinnaswamy 1989 ACJ 371 (Madras), a learned Judge of this Court was dealing with a case where a lady passenger was alighting from the front exit of the bus and her one foot was on the footboard and other on the road when the conductor gave whistle and the driver moved the bus and she was knocked down and dragged along by the body of the bus and sustained fatal injuries. There was no bus stop at the place of accident therein and the abovesaid passenger jumped from the running bus. However, the further evidence is that eyewitnesses who were passengers of the bus shouted to the driver to stop the bus. In the above circumstances, it was held that the crew of the bus was negligent for the accident which occurred at a place where the bus had stopped, though it was not a bus stop. The relevant observation therein is as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 43 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Noorjahan vs Sultan Rajia Alias Thaju And Ors. on 20 April, 1992

(Emphasis supplied) So, according to this proviso, a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death or injury to persons alighting from the vehicle at the time of the accident "except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward..." So, it implies that in the above-mentioned exceptional case as in the present case, admittedly the policy shall cover the abovesaid liability, that is, even where the death or injury results while the person concerned alights from the vehicle at the time of the accident. It should also be noted that while Section 95(1) speaks of what liabilities have to be covered by the insurance policy and what not, Section 95(2) provides for the extent of such liability, where the said liability has to be covered pursuant to Section 95(1). Further, Section 95(2) also specifically states that the said Sub-section (2) is subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1)". Therefore, while trying to understand the meaning of the term 'passenger' in Section 95(2)(b)(ii) which fixed the abovesaid limit of Rs. 10,000/- at the relevant time, we have to necessarily take into account what is stated in the abovesaid proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 95. 'We have already indicated that as per the abovesaid proviso (ii) to the abovesaid Section 95(1) the liability need not be covered in respect of death or injury to persons alighting from the vehicle at the time of the accident except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment and that the further implication of the abovesaid rule contained in the abovesaid proviso (ii) is that where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, the abovesaid liability arising when one alights from the vehicle has necessarily to be covered. Only in this last exceptional category the present case would fall and so the policy shall provide such a liability and where the policy does provide as in the present case, as per Section 95(2)(b)(ii), the limit of the deceased passenger in the present case could be only Rs. 10,000. So, in such a situation the term 'passenger' used in Section 95(2)(ii) would also include a person alighting from the vehicle concerned after finishing his journey in the bus. Therefore, with due respect, we hold that the abovesaid judgments of Padmini Jesudurai, J. which are reported in the cases of Thoznilalar Transport Company v. Valliammal 1990 ACJ 201 (Madras) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V.K. Sundaravali 1990 ACJ 821 (Madras) and the unreported judgment of Kader, J. in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A.R. Sundari C.M.A. No. 55 of 1981; decided on 24.12.1986, are not correct and that the judgment of Swamikkannu, J. in Venkataswami Motor Service v. C.K. Chinnaswamy 1989 ACJ 371 (Madras) and the unreported judgment of Ratnam, J. in Safe Service Ltd., Salem v. Papathi C.M.A. No. 888 of 1985; decided on 3.8.1990, are correct. We may make it clear, however, that we have not expressed our opinion on the other judgments referred to above dealing with cases of death or injury while attempting to get into the vehicle.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

The Managing Director vs S.Ravi on 29 January, 2007

9. This Court in Venkataswami Motor Service v. C.K.Chinnaswamy [1989 ACJ 371], has held that the fundamental duty of both, the driver as well as the conductor, to verify specifically whether any passenger is getting into the bus or getting down from the bus before actually the bus is moved from the bus stop where it is stopped, irrespective of the fact whether that place of stopping is a bus stop or not.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next