Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
G. Pitchaiah Naidu vs Apseb, Madakaira And Another on 20 November, 1999 cites

Mohinder Singh Sohal And Anr. vs Ramesh Kumar And Ors. on 10 October, 1980

"Contributory negligence is not to be presumed merely from the facts that Sukhwinder Singh did not hold a driving licence and that he was carrying more passengers on the vehicle than permitted under law. If Sukhwinder Singh was driving his motor cycle with due care and caution in that case it could not be held that he was liable for the contributory negligence. . At times, even most competent driver may be without a licence. For example, he may, by sheer inadvertence, have failed to have his licence renewed. Such a driver cannot be held to be negligent merely from the fact that he was driving without a licence. The matter is not res Integra.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Fire ... vs Nakkina Raju And Ors. on 14 October, 1993

9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents Sri Kota Subba Rao drew my attention to a decision reported in The Divisional Manager, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Guntur v. Nakkina Raju and others, . This case pertains to the collision of two vehicle and there is evidence establishing that drivers of both the vehicles were equally negligent for collision. In that view of the matter, the Court has applied the theory of contributory negligence. The relevant passage of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Reny Mammen And Others on 31 August, 1990

In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Reny Mammen a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that in the case of composite negligence, the liability of the drivers has to be to the extent of negligence of each one of the drivers and therefore he is answerable to the claim only to that extent and not more and constitutes the vicarious liability of his master/ owner of the vehicle, if any, also in the same proportion and that the liability of one cannot be foisted on the other. In some cases it is very difficult to find out which of the drivers is at fault and in such a case generally the Courts will conclude that both the drivers are at fault. But in the case of collision where there is evidence that both are equally negligent, it is desirable to apportion the liability among both the drivers by 50%: 50%".
Karnataka High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1