Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)Smt. Shail Kumari vs M.P. Electricity Board And Anr. on 17 July, 2001
In a decision reported in Shail Kumari vs. M.P. Electricity
Board4, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed thus:
M.P. Electricity Board vs Shail Kumari And Ors on 12 January, 2002
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail
Kumari5 held that the facts of that case are akin to those of this case.
That was a case where the deceased was riding a bicycle at night and
5
(2002) 2 SCC 162: A.I.R. 2002 SC 551
9 TMR, J
A.S. No.170 of 2010
returning from his factory. There had been rain, and the road was
partially inundated with water. The cyclist did not notice the live wire on
the road, and hence, he rode the vehicle over the wire, which twitched and
snatched him, and he was instantaneously electrocuted. The main defence
raised by the defendant was that the wire in question had been used by
somebody to siphon energy for his use and said the act was done
clandestinely behind the back of the Electricity Board. The line got
unfastened from the hook, and it fell on the road over which the cycle
driven by the deceased slid, resulting in instantaneous electrocution. In
those facts, the Supreme Court held as follows:
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many
subsequent decisions in England, and decisions of the apex Court
are legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 SC 1480 and a
Division Bench in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. V.
RamanbhaiPrabhatbhai, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1690, had followed the
principle in Rylands (supra) with approval.
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
The same principle
was reiterated in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., A.I.R. 2001 SC 485."
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
In Saleema Begum and others vs. State of J.K. and others7, the High
Court of J & K followed the Apex Court's Judgment in M. C. Mehta v. Union
of India8, has gone even beyond the principle laid down in "Rylands v.
Fletcher" by holding as follows:
Laxmi Devi & Others vs Mohammad Tabbar & Another on 25 March, 2008
In a case like this, where there is no specific evidence as to the
income of the deceased, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lakshmi Devi and
Others vs Mohammad Tabber11 held that, in today's world, even common
labour can earn Rs.100/- per day. Based on the above principle, this
Court safely assesses the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-.
Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001
In the public interest litigation for compensation and justice to
persons who died and were injured in TISCOs function on 3.3.89 in
Jamshedpur by sudden fire, the Supreme Court-appointed Justice
Y.V.Chandrachud to assess and report; Report given after about seven
years; Claimants contending that system of multiplier in assessing
compensation is not proper and considering the report and three decisions
of Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa &
Ors. V. State of Bihar &Ors.12, observed that: