Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing United India Insurance Co vs Mrs. Suseela Jothi Mary on 31 July, 2020

Sunanda K.R vs T.T. Kuruvila on 28 February, 2024

9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has relied upon the following judgments : (1) (2005)6 SCC 172, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Prembai Patel and others, (2) 2014 AIR SCW 1081, in the case of Lachoo Ram and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (3) 2021 ACJ 1041, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Suseela Jothi Mary and another and (4) 2021 ACJ 1935, in the case of Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sowmya G.N., and others.
Bangalore District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Divisional Manager vs Tirupathi on 9 December, 2021

10. At least two Division Benches of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. D.Hemavathy and others, reported in 2017 (2) TANMAC 115, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Suseela Jothi Mary and others, reported in Manu/TN/7547/2020 in CMA No.1814 of 2016, have held that FIR and other documentary evidence that are made available should be looked into in determining the negligence. It is also settled law that mere involvement of a vehicle in an accident cannot attribute negligence to the driver of the vehicle, it has to be proved by evidence. In the case on hand, the evidence in the form of the documents viz., FIR, the Charge Sheet and the Investigation Report as well as the admission by the claimant that FIR was lodged against the other vehicle namely the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 23 BS 2586, is definitely entitled to much more probative value than the evidence of P.W.2, which is very much unreliable.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

The Branch Manager vs Sundarambal on 2 June, 2025

20. A close scrutiny of the above judgment makes it clear that, on the facts of the case, the Division Bench came to a factual conclusion that there was no evidence on record to suggest that negligence was attributable to the drivers of both vehicles involved in the accident, and hence, there was no composite negligence. The Division Bench categorically held that in that case, the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler whose owner and insurer 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:35 pm ) CMA.Nos.2843 of 2022 etc batches were not impleaded. It was also held that the impleaded owner of the vehicle was not a joint tort-feasor. The relevant observation of the Division Bench reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Ayswarya vs M.Balasubramanian on 9 October, 2025

25. The documentary evidence indicate the accident was caused by 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 04:30:17 pm ) C.M.A.No1508 of 2021 the lorry driver. However, the owner and its insurer had not been impleaded as respondents, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. The Division Bench of this Court in Suseela Jothi Mary case and D.Hemavathy and others has held that where the FIR and charge sheet implicate the lorry driver, merely based on the oral evidence of a witness whose presence at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful, fix liability on the two wheeler rider and its insurer.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document
1