Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Sampati Lal And Ors. vs Hari Singh And Ors. on 19 March, 1985

Umed Chand Golcha vs Dayaram And Ors. on 20 October, 2000

In this regard counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in Sampati Lal v. Hari Singh 1985 ACJ 539 (Rajasthan), which was also a case under the Motor Vehicles Act. In that case, the claimant died during the pendency of the proceedings. The court opined that the claim on account of personal damages did not survive in view of Section 306 of Indian Succession Act. Only claim relating to loss to the estate did survive. In the present case, admittedly, the death was not due to the accident which was caused on 18.9.1973. The objector died during the pendency of appeal on 17.8.1983. Hence, Mr. Tarun Johri's contention that claim for enhancement of general damages after the death of the objector did not survive appears to be right. As regards other claims regarding medical expenses, expenses on special diet, doctor's fees and conveyance, Mr. Tarun Johri contended even those are also personal in nature, therefore, the objection petition is not maintainable after the death of the injured.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 12 - A K Mishra - Full Document

Jenabai And Ors. vs Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. And ... on 27 December, 1990

15. The provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act relate only to the personal or bodily injuries and not to the loss caused to the estate of the deceased by the tortfeasor. Therefore, it can be concluded that the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona has been considerably abrogated or modified by the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, explicitly, prescribes that all demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party. The loss to the estate or injury to the proprietary or property right affecting the estate of the deceased, thus, cannot be said to have been covered by the exception contained in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. The view of this court is also fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Sampati Lal v. Hari Singh 1985 ACJ 539 (Rajasthan). It was clearly held in the said decision that the right to sue is available to the legal representatives of the deceased as a claim on account of the deceased survived and passed over to his legal representatives. It was held in the said case that expenses incurred on treatment and loss of income from the date of accident to death amounts to a loss to the estate.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

S. Vykuntam And 3 Ors. vs G. Narayana And 2 Ors. on 24 October, 2006

(6) Legal position enunciated in the Division Bench decision of this Court in Muniyappa's case 1984 A.C.J., 299 (Karnataka), as regards survival of cause of action in personal injury claims arising out of the motor accidents being well in accordance with the law laid down in the matter in the Supreme Court decisions in Melepurath's case 1986 A.C.J., 440 (SC) and M. Veerappa's case AIR 1988 S.C., 506, has to be upheld; and (7) Legal positions tated in Kongara Narayanamma's case 1975 A.C.J., 448 (AP), Thailammai's case 1981 A.C.J., 185 (Madras), Joti Ram's case 1984 A.C.J., 645 (P&H) and Sampati Lal's case 1985 A.C.J., 539 (Rajasthan), as regards survival of cause of action in personal injury claims arising out of motor accidents by concerned learned Judges, not being in accordance with the law laid down in the matter by the Supreme Court decision in Melepurath's case 1986 A.C.J., 440 (S.C.)
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

V. Mepherson vs Shiv Charan Singh on 7 October, 1996

In this regard counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in re Sampati Lal & Ors. V. Hari Singh and Ors. , which was also a case under the Motor Vehicle Act.. In that case claimant died during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court opined that the claim on account of personal damages did not survive in view of Section 306 of the Successions Act. Only claim relating to loss to the estate did survive. In the present case admittedly, the death was not due to the accident which was caused on 18th september,1973. The objector died during the pendency of the appeal on 17th August,1983. Hence, Mr.Tarun Johri's contention that the claim for enhancement of general damages after the death of the objector did not survive appears to be right. As regards other claims regarding medical expenses expenses on special diet, doctor's fees and conveyance, Mr.Johri contended even those are also personal in nature, therefore, the objection petition is not maintainable after the death of the injured.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 59 - Full Document

V. Mepherson And Anr. vs Shiv Charan Singh And Ors. on 7 October, 1996

In this regard Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in re Sampati Lal and Ors. v. Hari Singh and Ors. , which was also a case under the Motor Vehicles Act. In that case claimant died during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court opined that the claim on account of personal damages did not survive in view of Section 306 of the Succession Act. Only claim relating to loss to the estate did survive. In the present case admittedly, the death was not due to the accident which was caused on 18th September, 1973. The objector died during the pendency of the appeal on 17th August, 1983. Hence, Mr. Tarunjohri's contention that the claim for enhancement of general damages after the death of the objector did not survive appears to be right. As regards other claims regarding medical expenses on special diet, doctor's fees and conveyance, Mr. Johri contended even those are also personal in nature, therefore, the objection petition is not maintainable after the death of the injured.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Smt. Munni Devi W/O Late Sh. Jagannath, ... vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jaipal ... on 21 January, 2003

"6. .I have heard both the learned Counsel and have also perused the record. It is true that personal action dies with the person, this principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona has been recognised by the Indian courts also. But the exception is contained in section 306 of the Indian Succession Act which saves the action to the extent of loss to the estate of the deceased. This has been laid down by this court in Sampati Lal v. Hari Singh, 1985 ACJ 539 (Rajasthan). Therefore, the view taken by the learned Tribunal that all the actions pertaining to the person prior to his death die with the person is not correct. Thus, the contention of Mr. Parihar that except item Nos. (a) and (c) other claims mentioned in the claim petition can still survive and it can be still tried by the learned Tribunal, appears to be correct. Thus, I uphold the contention of Mr. Parihar and hold that the claims raised by the legal representatives of the deceased in the claim petition mentioned therein except item Nos., (a) and (c) can be tried by the learned Tribunal."
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Smt. Veenita Devi vs Sh. Baiju Kumar (Driver & Owner) on 6 November, 2019

49. It has to be seen that in the authority titled as Sampati Lal and others Vs. Hari Singh & others cited as II(1985), ACC 467 and AIR 1985 Rajasthan 174 of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan was dealing with an issue pertaining to the death of one Sh. Khem Raj. In the said case, the accident took place on 20.03.1972 and the injured suffered from crush injury of both his feet. The injured was 63 years of age and he incurred disability also. However, on 16.04.1974, the injured expired. An application was brought by the legal heirs for substitution but subsequently, MACT Case No. 47665/14 Page No. 15/23 the application for claim was dismissed on the ground that the cause of action disappear with the death of the injured applying the maxine of Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Personal. Appeal was filed. It was held "...... The application for compensation does not, therefore, abate if the applicant dies during the pendency of the application.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Purnimaben W/O Prabodh Balashanker ... on 18 December, 2007

(3) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Amishkumar Vinodbhai and Ors. 1996 (3) GLR 212; (4) Jenabhai and Ors. v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. ; (5) G.M., Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. pushpa Devi and Ors. ; (6) Legal Representatives of Om Prakash Maya and Ors. v. Mahendra Pal and Ors. 1989 ACJ 1114; (7) Sampati Lal v. Hari Singh and Ors. 1985 ACJ 539;
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A R Dave - Full Document
1   2 3 Next