Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Sarita And Ors on 23 December, 2014 cites

Girdhari Lal vs Radhey Shyam And Ors. on 18 March, 1993

Learned counsel for the appellant has shown photocopy of the report dated 12.03.2011 of the doctor wherein it has been stated that possibility of death of the deceased due to injuries caused by roadside accident seems remote. Significantly, the doctor has failed to say firmly that the cause of death of the deceased are not the injuries received by him in motor vehicle accident. Even otherwise, report of medical authorities with regard to cause of death is only opinionative in nature and cannot supercede the substantive evidence brought on record by the applicants in proof of the occurrence in the form of deposition of Rohtash- PW4, an eye witness and record of criminal Court to show that respondent No.5-Driver of the offending vehicle is facing criminal proceedings. As has been held in Girdhari Lal versus Radhey Shyam, 1993(2) PLR 109, Sudama Devi and others versus Kewal Ram and others, (XLIX-(2008-1) the PLR 444 and Ram Sarup and others versus Om Prakash and others, (XLIX-(2008-1) the PLR 461 pendency of criminal proceedings against driver of the offending vehicle in itself is sufficient to reach a conclusion that he has been negligent in driving the offending vehicle and it is on account of his negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle that life of deceased has been prematurely terminated. In case respondent No.5-Jagdish was not negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident resulting into death of the deceased, he could make a statement before the police officials to that effect. In case the police officials of the concerned police Station were not ready to hear him, he could certainly approach higher authorities to say that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case or the accident did not take place in the manner stated in the first Pooja Saini 2015.01.08 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- FAO No.10454 of 2014 information report. He has chosen not to do so. His silence in itself is sufficient to presume that at the time of the accident, he was negligent and as a result of his negligence, the accident leading to death of Dilbagh Singh took place.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 123 - Full Document

Sudama Devi And Ors. vs Kewal Ram And Ors. on 28 November, 2007

Learned counsel for the appellant has shown photocopy of the report dated 12.03.2011 of the doctor wherein it has been stated that possibility of death of the deceased due to injuries caused by roadside accident seems remote. Significantly, the doctor has failed to say firmly that the cause of death of the deceased are not the injuries received by him in motor vehicle accident. Even otherwise, report of medical authorities with regard to cause of death is only opinionative in nature and cannot supercede the substantive evidence brought on record by the applicants in proof of the occurrence in the form of deposition of Rohtash- PW4, an eye witness and record of criminal Court to show that respondent No.5-Driver of the offending vehicle is facing criminal proceedings. As has been held in Girdhari Lal versus Radhey Shyam, 1993(2) PLR 109, Sudama Devi and others versus Kewal Ram and others, (XLIX-(2008-1) the PLR 444 and Ram Sarup and others versus Om Prakash and others, (XLIX-(2008-1) the PLR 461 pendency of criminal proceedings against driver of the offending vehicle in itself is sufficient to reach a conclusion that he has been negligent in driving the offending vehicle and it is on account of his negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle that life of deceased has been prematurely terminated. In case respondent No.5-Jagdish was not negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident resulting into death of the deceased, he could make a statement before the police officials to that effect. In case the police officials of the concerned police Station were not ready to hear him, he could certainly approach higher authorities to say that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case or the accident did not take place in the manner stated in the first Pooja Saini 2015.01.08 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- FAO No.10454 of 2014 information report. He has chosen not to do so. His silence in itself is sufficient to presume that at the time of the accident, he was negligent and as a result of his negligence, the accident leading to death of Dilbagh Singh took place.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Inder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2012

There is another aspect of the matter. Respondent No.5- Jagdish-driver of the offending vehicle who had knowledge of the factum and manner of occurrence better than anybody else on this earth, has shied away from the witness stand. His reluctance to enter the witness box raises a presumption in terms of clause (g) appended to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("Act" in short) to the effect that evidence of Jagdish- respondent No.5 which could be, but has not been brought on record, if brought on record would have demolished plea of the appellant and his co- respondents in the claim application to the effect that the occurrence in the manner as stated by the applicants did not take place. Even otherwise, non- appearance of driver of the offending vehicle to support case pleaded by the respondents in the claim application leads to an inference that case pleaded in the written reply was untrue as has been held in Inder Singh versus Haryana State 1987 ACJ 94, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation versus Vaijanti and others 1995 ACJ 560 In view of the above, there is no reason in sight to interfere with the well reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - R S Malik - Full Document

M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Vaijanti And Ors. on 10 August, 1994

There is another aspect of the matter. Respondent No.5- Jagdish-driver of the offending vehicle who had knowledge of the factum and manner of occurrence better than anybody else on this earth, has shied away from the witness stand. His reluctance to enter the witness box raises a presumption in terms of clause (g) appended to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("Act" in short) to the effect that evidence of Jagdish- respondent No.5 which could be, but has not been brought on record, if brought on record would have demolished plea of the appellant and his co- respondents in the claim application to the effect that the occurrence in the manner as stated by the applicants did not take place. Even otherwise, non- appearance of driver of the offending vehicle to support case pleaded by the respondents in the claim application leads to an inference that case pleaded in the written reply was untrue as has been held in Inder Singh versus Haryana State 1987 ACJ 94, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation versus Vaijanti and others 1995 ACJ 560 In view of the above, there is no reason in sight to interfere with the well reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Ram Sarup And Ors. vs Om Parkash And Ors. on 28 November, 2007

Learned counsel for the appellant has shown photocopy of the report dated 12.03.2011 of the doctor wherein it has been stated that possibility of death of the deceased due to injuries caused by roadside accident seems remote. Significantly, the doctor has failed to say firmly that the cause of death of the deceased are not the injuries received by him in motor vehicle accident. Even otherwise, report of medical authorities with regard to cause of death is only opinionative in nature and cannot supercede the substantive evidence brought on record by the applicants in proof of the occurrence in the form of deposition of Rohtash- PW4, an eye witness and record of criminal Court to show that respondent No.5-Driver of the offending vehicle is facing criminal proceedings. As has been held in Girdhari Lal versus Radhey Shyam, 1993(2) PLR 109, Sudama Devi and others versus Kewal Ram and others, (XLIX-(2008-1) the PLR 444 and Ram Sarup and others versus Om Prakash and others, (XLIX-(2008-1) the PLR 461 pendency of criminal proceedings against driver of the offending vehicle in itself is sufficient to reach a conclusion that he has been negligent in driving the offending vehicle and it is on account of his negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle that life of deceased has been prematurely terminated. In case respondent No.5-Jagdish was not negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident resulting into death of the deceased, he could make a statement before the police officials to that effect. In case the police officials of the concerned police Station were not ready to hear him, he could certainly approach higher authorities to say that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case or the accident did not take place in the manner stated in the first Pooja Saini 2015.01.08 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- FAO No.10454 of 2014 information report. He has chosen not to do so. His silence in itself is sufficient to presume that at the time of the accident, he was negligent and as a result of his negligence, the accident leading to death of Dilbagh Singh took place.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1