Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)Smt. Manne Bala Saraswathi And Others vs Pilchale Subbarao And Another on 20 January, 1989
Of these cases, we find that only in Manne Bala Saraswathi v. P. Subbarao (1990) 1 A.C.C. 202 (D.B.) Kerala, compensation has been awarded under Section 92-A even though the deceased victim was himself solely negligent and there was no negligence on the part of the other parly.
Samati Deb Barma And Ors. vs State Of Tripura And Ors. on 24 April, 1985
Therefore, the only interpretation that could be put on Clause (4) of Section 92-A of the Act is that even where there is some negligence or default on the part of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement, the claim has been made his claim for compensation from the other party, whose negligence, he is unable to prove, shall not be defeated. In other words, the said Clause (4) only negates totally the concept of contributory negligence. We also find from Seth's Law relating to Traffic Offences and Accidents Claim, 2nd edition at page 761 that a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Saman Deb Barma v. State of Tripura (1985) G.L.R. 420, has also observed likewise.
Sri Inja Venkatrao vs Smt. Sundara Barik And Anr. on 21 August, 1990
10. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought to cite several decisions of different High Courts, wherein, according to him, even where there is negligence on the part of the deceased victim in the case of fatal accidents or on the part of the injured claimant in other accidents compensation has been awarded under Section 92-A of the Act. The decisions cited by him are Inja Venkatrao v. Sundara Barik , Vatchala Uttam Mors v. Shivaji Dnyanu Patil A.I.R. 1991 Bom.
Lord Krishna Sugar Mills vs Municipal Committee, Saharanpur on 8 December, 1965
(emphasis supplied)
It must be noted here that only to the above extent, the substantive law has been modified in this regard and not to the extent that even where the deceased or injured, as the case may be, is negligent and not the other party, the former can claim compensation. Where the former is negligent, there is no scope at all for himself claiming any compensation from any other party for his own fault. That is the substantive law. That part of the substantive law has not at all been modified by Section 92-A of the Act. Such a modification cannot be the intention of the Legislature since it is totally contrary to the general law of torts and basic principle of law. An interpretation leading to absurdity has also to be avoided. Express Mills v. Municipal Committee .
Vatschala Uttam More (Smt.) vs Shivaji Dnyanu Patil And Anr. on 5 February, 1990
10. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought to cite several decisions of different High Courts, wherein, according to him, even where there is negligence on the part of the deceased victim in the case of fatal accidents or on the part of the injured claimant in other accidents compensation has been awarded under Section 92-A of the Act. The decisions cited by him are Inja Venkatrao v. Sundara Barik , Vatchala Uttam Mors v. Shivaji Dnyanu Patil A.I.R. 1991 Bom.
Krishna Pillai Bhaskaran Pillai vs Jaleel Ahamed And Ors. on 1 June, 1989
234, Kiishna Pillai v. Jalal Ahamed and Ors. (1990) A.C.C. 111, Manne Bala Saraswathi v. P. Subbarao (1990) 1 A.C.C. 202 (D.B.)
1