Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (3.16 seconds)
Documents citing Gurdeep Kaur Widow Of Shri Sukhdev Singh vs Tarsem Singh And Ors. on 16 November, 2007

The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt.Pinki & Ors on 5 May, 2010

Ms.Radhika Suri, learned counsel for the appellant, challenged the findings on issue No.1, by contending that the claimants had failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, as no evidence was led, to prove the negligence. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that PW 5 in cross-examination had admitted, that she was not present at the time of accident. The contents of the FIR were also not proved as the eye witnesses were not examined to prove the allegations. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, further was that the learned Tribunal wrongly placed reliance, on the judgment of this court in the case of Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Tarsem Singh (supra) to hold that registration of FIR itself was sufficient to prove the factum of negligence. FAO No.2338 of 2010 6 She referred to para No.12 of the judgment, to contend that in fact in the judgment, this court was pleased to lay down that the statement of witnesses before a Tribunal constitutes substantive evidence, whereas the statement made in FIR, is not a substantive evidence, but it can only be used for the purpose of contradiction or corroboration of the substantive evidence.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Seema And Others on 29 January, 2026

In Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 774, it was held that the Tribunals established under the Motor Vehicles Act, are not governed by the rules of procedure envisaged by the Civil Procedure Code and the Tribunals are required to evolve their own procedure to meet the ends of justice, based on the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. The proceedings before the Tribunal are of summary nature wherein inquiry has to be conducted and the evidence is not to be scrutinized, in the manner, as is done in a civil or in a criminal case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S P Sharma - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Sarla Devi And Ors on 25 February, 2026

In judgment titled as Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Tarsem Singh,2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 774 it was held that if the driver of offending vehicle is facing trial for causing accident in rash and negligent manner, it is prima facie proof of concluding negligence of offending driver in motor vehicular accident claim case. If the oral 6 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 07-03-2026 00:58:42 ::: FAO-1734-2018 (O&M) -7- testimony of PW-2 is read with FIR Ex. P-7, report under section 173 Cr. P.C. Ex. P-6, and PMR Ex. P-15 and the fact that respondent No. 1 had never protested against lodging of FIR and that it is respondent No. 1 who is facing trial for causing accident, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that deceased Mahavir Singh had died in accident dated 08.12.2015 caused by respondent No. 1 due to his rash and negligent driving while driving Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR-39B-0083. In view of failure on the part of respondents to rebut trustworthy evidence led by claimants, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against respondents. ISSUES NO. 2 & 3:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S P Sharma - Full Document

Dropti And Ors vs Vinod And Ors on 17 April, 2023

6. i) Perusal of record of the case shows that in determining income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal took into considera on the fact that as per relevant Minimum Wage no fica on, income of the deceased could have been taken as Rs.8,280/- per month. However, Learned Tribunal considered judgment of this Court in Gurdeep Singh Vs. Tarsem Singh 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 774 wherein it has been held that in a case such as the present one where the deceased was cul va ng about 7 acres of land, services rendered by him in managing and cul va ng the land should be es mated in terms of money as Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal appreciated the fact that in the said case, the accident had taken place as far back as in 1988 whereas in the present case accident was of 2017, and held that therefore, it would be fair and just to assess no onal income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bala Devi And Ors vs Mahender Singh And Ors on 17 May, 2023

In this regard, reliance may be placed upon judgment of this Court in Gurdeep Singh Vs. Tarsem Singh 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 774 wherein it has been held that in a case such as the present one where the deceased was cultivating about 7 acres of land, services rendered by him in managing and cultivating the land should be estimated in terms of money as Rs.3,000/- per month. However, in the said case, the accident had taken place as far back as in 1988 whereas in the present case accident is of 2017. Therefore, in my view, it would be fair and just to assess notional income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sham Sunder vs Gurnam Singh And Others on 12 December, 2008

During the course of arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment Gurdeep Kaur vs. Tarsem Singh 2008(2) RCR (civil) 774 wherein it was held that the FIR was often lodged in haste and same could not be a substituted for evidence giving the exhaustive version of the occurrence. Statement before the Tribunal are made on a solemn information, whereas, FIR is not lodged on a solemn information. However, the said judgment fails to advance the case of the appellant as it is on the different facts. In the present case, in the report regarding the accident it was informed to the police that the accident had taken place per chance and none of the drivers of three trucks involved in the accident was negligent. Since the said DDR was not challenged by the claimant nor the claimant had lodged any FIR to the effect that the accident had occurred due to negligence of other drivers while driving their offending trucks, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the claimant with regard to the manner of accident.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Sabina - Full Document

Lakhi Ram vs Sushil Kumar & Others on 30 May, 2012

......." 10. The Counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that Tarsem Singh, driver of the Bus, was neither rash nor negligent, in driving the Bus, at the relevant time, resulting into accident and FAO No.5527 of 2011 -3 - leading to the death of Sukhdev Singh, one of the occupants of the tractor-trolley. He further contended that sufficient substantive evidence was led by the claimants, to prove that Tarsem Singh- driver of the Bus, was rash or negligent, in driving the same, as a result whereof, the accident took place leading to the death of Sukhdev Singh, one of the occupants of the trolley attached to the tractor, but the same was ignored by the Tribunal, without any sound reason. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, in this regard, appears to be correct, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The principle of law, laid down in N.K.V. Bros.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - J Chauhan - Full Document

U.I.Ins.Co.Ltd vs Smt.Sugni Devi & Ors on 24 August, 2012

The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment rendered by the Single Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Gurdeep Kaur & Others v. Tarsem Singh & Others, reported in 2009 ACJ 314, in which the High Court set aside the finding of the Tribunal as the same was based on the site plan. While doing so, the learned Single Bench held that, "the Tribunal also took into consideration the photographs and the site plan, Exh.PM, while coming to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trolley. It may be stated here that no significance could be attached to the photographs, as it is a matter of common knowledge that after the accident, the vehicles do not remain in the same position in which the same was at the time of accident. Exh.PM, is only a rough site plan."
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikesh Kumar @ Vikey vs Satish Kumar And Anr on 23 January, 2014

The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition, even though the claimant himself appeared as PW1 and had placed on record copy of the FIR which was lodged. He has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Tarsem Singh (P&H) 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 774, wherein this Court while relying upon an earlier decision in Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhey Sham and others 1994 (1) ACJ 168 held that where a driver is facing trial in a criminal Court for rash and negligent driving, that fact coupled with the statement of the complainant would enable him to prove that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next