Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.67 seconds)

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Saroj Singh And 7 Others on 20 January, 2021

9. In the light of above submission record of the case is perused. Issue no. 2 has been framed in regard to contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. It has discarded the evidence of PW1 on the aspect of contributory negligence, but has given a finding of contributory negligence on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the insurance company, which had produced driver of the bus Ram Sewak Paswan, who deposed that he was moving on his left hand side at normal speed, when driver of the motorcycle came from a wrong direction from right hand side and had hit the bus. He had applied the break which caused injuries to passengers of the bus. Tribunal has also taken into consideration the spot map, Exhibit 88/2, produced by respondent no. 4-insurance company and prepared by the investigating officer from which it became evident that there was factum of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, inasmuch as bus was moving from Gorakhpur to Deoria, when motorcycle was coming from the side of Deoria had hit the bus on the center of the road. When this evidence is taken into consideration, as has been adduced on behalf of the insurance company, then it is apparent that none of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the claimants namely, Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2018 ACJ 1300, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rani Srivastava and Others, 2006 ACJ 1864, Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation vs. Chohtey Lal and Others, 2008 (3) TAC 547 (All.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Smt. Saroj Singh And 4 Others vs Smt. Dropadi Devi And 3 Others on 20 January, 2021

9. In the light of above submission record of the case is perused. Issue no. 2 has been framed in regard to contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. It has discarded the evidence of PW1 on the aspect of contributory negligence, but has given a finding of contributory negligence on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the insurance company, which had produced driver of the bus Ram Sewak Paswan, who deposed that he was moving on his left hand side at normal speed, when driver of the motorcycle came from a wrong direction from right hand side and had hit the bus. He had applied the break which caused injuries to passengers of the bus. Tribunal has also taken into consideration the spot map, Exhibit 88/2, produced by respondent no. 4-insurance company and prepared by the investigating officer from which it became evident that there was factum of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, inasmuch as bus was moving from Gorakhpur to Deoria, when motorcycle was coming from the side of Deoria had hit the bus on the center of the road. When this evidence is taken into consideration, as has been adduced on behalf of the insurance company, then it is apparent that none of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the claimants namely, Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2018 ACJ 1300, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rani Srivastava and Others, 2006 ACJ 1864, Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation vs. Chohtey Lal and Others, 2008 (3) TAC 547 (All.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Afzal Husain And 7 Others on 3 July, 2024

13. So far as the plea of contributory negligence is concerned, this plea has neither been taken before the tribunal nor any issue has been framed by the tribunal on this point. The learned Tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced before it found that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Even otherwise, the accident has been denied by the appellant and once the accident has been denied by the appellant the plea of contributory negligence is not available to the appellant as held by this Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation versus Rani Srivastava and others(supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd Thr. ... vs Adil Lutfi Peters And Anr. on 6 January, 2026

Co. Ltd. 1", "U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Rani Srivastava & Ors. 2", "Manikandan v. P. Palani & 1 (2015) 9 SCC 273 2 2006 ACJ 1864 (Allahabad HC) 2/7 902-FA-1763-2025 & IA-13587-2025 & IA-11383-2025.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:57:50 ::: Ors.3", "K. Anusha & Rs v. Regional Manager, Shriram Gen. Ins.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd Thr. ... vs Adil Lutfi Peters And Anr. on 6 January, 2026

Co. Ltd. 1", "U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Rani Srivastava & Ors. 2", "Manikandan v. P. Palani & 1 (2015) 9 SCC 273 2 2006 ACJ 1864 (Allahabad HC) 2/7 902-FA-1763-2025 & IA-13587-2025 & IA-11383-2025.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:57:51 ::: Ors.3", "K. Anusha & Rs v. Regional Manager, Shriram Gen. Ins.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. D Nagarathnamma vs Gadilingappa S/O Thippanna on 25 July, 2014

To substantiate the said submission further, he strongly relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex 10 Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rani Srivastava and others reported in 2006 ACJ 1864 and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Vijayalaxmi and others reported in ILR 2011 Kar.4845 and drew our specific attention to paragraphs 12 of the judgment of the Apex Court and paragraph 24 of the Division bench decision of this Court and submitted that the entire burden is on the part of the Insurer to take the plea in their statement of objections itself and in the instant case, the Insurer has not pleaded the contributory negligence in their written statement filed. Therefore, he submitted that, in view of the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the entire liability may be fastened on the Insurer of the Tractor and Trailer and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal be modified accordingly .
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1