Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.33 seconds)

Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985

30. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment in Union of India and Another Vs. Nanisari and Others MACA 682/2005 decided on 13.1.2010 have given certain guidelines and directions to the Motor Accident Tribunals to the effect that henceforth the Tribunals shall direct the insurance companies to deposit the award amount in the bank within 30 days with further direction as to the disbursement of the same in terms of the award and case be kept pending till the compliance is placed on record. The directions given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as mentioned and endorsed in the said order has already been re affirmed by Hon;ble Supreme Court of India in order dated 17.12.2009 in SLP (C) No. 11801-11804/2005 which contains certain schemes initiated for the benefit of the victims of the road accidents after the award amount is passed. The para no.18 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi runs as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 1450 - D P Madon - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Pushpa Rana And Ors. on 20 December, 2007

13. While determining the negligence, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court has held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR in addition to recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach at the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Suit No. 309/14 Page No. 4/12 Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4796 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001

Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC , it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 2652 - Full Document
1   2 Next