Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.72 seconds)
Dheeraj Gupta vs Ajay Kumar & Anr (Bharti Axa General ... on 12 March, 2024 cites

G.Ravindranath @ R.Chowdary vs E.Srinivas & Anr on 1 July, 2013

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant urged that the learned Tribunal adopted a flawed approach in holding the appellant guilty of contributory negligence merely on the basis of the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer (IO) in the course of investigation arising out of FIR No.64/2013. Reference in this regard was made to the decision in the case of G. Ravindranath v. E. Srinivas4.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Mangla Ram vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 6 April, 2018

13. Indeed, the accident occurred on a single lane road and also a busy one, whereat apparently lots of vehicles were coming and going at about 8:30 A.M. on that fateful day. There was no suggestion either by learned counsel for the Insurance Company for that matter, or by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/driver6, that it was the appellant, who in any manner, contributed to the accident. Mere bald suggestions given during the cross-examination of the witnesses have no value unless something tangible is shown. That being the case, in a situation where the witness was not even confronted with the site plan prepared by the IO during the course of the investigation and not prodded about the findings recorded by the IO, it cannot be assumed that the appellant was at fault or contributed to the accident in any manner. It is not even clear as to at whose instance, the IO prepared the site plan. Further, the IO was not even called in the witness box by the respondent No.1/driver/owner or for that matter, by the Insurance Company. Reference can be invited to the decision in the case of Mangla v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited7.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 736 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017

16. In view of the aforesaid evidence, there is no gainsaying that the appellant, who was a young boy had suffered a permanent locomotive disability, which would not only hamper his daily routine in life but also his prospects to move around and enjoy a normal life; and the disability would come as an irreparable impediment in getting descent employment and would halt his progression in his career. Hence, this is a fit case where the loss of earning capacity should be reckoned @ 54 % as per the disability certificate. Further, 50% is required to be added towards loss of future prospects as per the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi8 and a multiplier of „18‟ would be applied in terms of the decision in Sarla Verma v. DTC9.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document
1