Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing M. Anandavalli Amma, Dr. A.R. Reshmy And ... vs Arvind Eye Hospital, Rep. By Its ... on 20 June, 2002

Kattabomman Transport Corporation vs Vellai Duraichi on 30 January, 2004

As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M. Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital (2002-3 L.W. 710), unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. To put it clear, if the appellant-Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person in the motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/ Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Ganeshan @ Ganesh vs Vilasini on 25 April, 2019

http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Abdul Salam (cites supra). As observed earlier, except stating that 3 persons travelled in a motor vehicle, which is prohibited, no specific finding was given to the effect that travelling of three persons in a motor cycle was responsible for the accident; hence we are of the view that the conclusion in 2003 I M.L.J. 489 is to be confined to that case. In other words, merely because there is violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules or the policy conditions, it is not automatic that in every case the principle of contributory negligence is to be applied mechanically. As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M. Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital (2002- 3 L.W. 710), unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. To put it clear, if the appellant-Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person in the motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/ Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three http://www.judis.nic.in 7 persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant.”
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - V M Velumani - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Saravanan ...1St on 23 November, 2022

As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M.Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital (2002-3 L.W. 710), unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.431 of 2022 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.27 of 2022 liable to pay compensation. To put it clear, if the appellant- Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person in the motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/ Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant.”
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mallika vs S.Balasubramanian on 28 January, 2019

9. It is also pertinent to refer the decision of other Division Bench, namely, M. Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital (2002-3 L.W. 710), in which it has been observed that "unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation."
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Ramathilagam - Full Document

Ravikumar vs Subramaniam on 4 September, 2019

As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M.Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital, 2002 (3) L.W. 710, unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. To put it clear, if the appellant-Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person in the motor cycle instead of two), the 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in CMA.No.3786 of 2005 accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant."
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Hemalatha - Full Document

Premkumar vs T.M.Balasubramaniyam on 24 January, 2020

As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M. Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital (2002-3 L.W. 710), unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. To put it clear, if the appellant-Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person in the motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/ Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on 8/24 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.94 & 95 of 2016 hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant.”
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Melur Medical Centre vs S.Alagumeena on 7 February, 2013

14.The learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M.Anandavalli Amma and others v. Arvind Eye Hospital and another reported in (2002) 3 MLJ 220, wherein this Court has held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, even though more 12 / 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1895 and 1896 of 2013 and 640, 641, 923 and 924 of 2014 number of persons travelled in the vehicle, which reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Managing Director vs Maheswari on 2 July, 2012

As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M.Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital, 2002 (3) L.W. 710, unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. To put it clear, if the appellant-Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person in the motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant."
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document
1   2 Next