Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)

Delhi Jal Board vs Raj Kumar And Ors. on 28 October, 2005

In the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Raj Kumar; AIR 2006 DELHI 75, similar case was dealt where compensation was claimed consequent to the death of a person riding a scooter while crossing a manhole improperly maintained. In cited case, the Delhi High Court held in Paragraph No. 39 that, there is a duty of the State to function 8 of 22 (( 9 )) SA-78-1999-final as a Welfare State and look after the welfare of all citizens. Therefore, the principle of strict liability applies to the defendant department who has to maintain the speed-breaker. However, the defendant authority failed to maintain the speed-breaker as per the specification, hence they are liable.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - M Katju - Full Document

Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 89, 100 & 101. Mr. Uday Bedi, ... on 16 March, 2023

In the case of N. D. M. C. Vs. Shri Chander Kishore Aggarwal - 2011 SCC Online Del 2381, wherein it has been observed that the central Government may make rules under Section 110 read with Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for maintenance of motor vehicles which includes the provision for speed-breakers, signboard. The doctrine of "res-ipsa loquitor" has been rightly adverted to. This maxim proposes two elements, (I) the accident explains only one thing and that is that the accident could not 15 of 22 (( 16 )) SA-78-1999-final ordinarily occur unless the defendant had been negligent; and (ii) that the cause of mischief was at the material time exclusively under the control of management of the defendant. In the present case this rule of evidence has not been rebutted by the original defendants, it was for defendant to led evidence to prove that there were proper road signs indicating the presence of the speed breaker, but no such evidence was led to that effect.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 143 - V Bakhru - Full Document
1