Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.35 seconds)
Radha And Others vs Gulab Singh And Others on 16 October, 2025 cites

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

10. Under issue No.1, the MACT held that the accident, as a result 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 06:15:05 ::: FAO-3427-2021 & FAO-3108-2022 -4- of which Sohan Ram had expired, had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Under issue No.2, the age of Sohan Ram was assessed between 48 to 50 years. In so far as the income is concerned, the same was assessed Rs.8827/- per month, the same being the minimum wages for an unskilled worker. While applying the other formulas in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 SCC Online SC 797, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Churu Ram and others, 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 333, a total sum of Rs.15,60,952/- was awarded as compensation. As far as the liability is concerned, it was held that since the trailer was not insured and only the tractor was insured, the insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the claim and only the driver and owner of the offending vehicle would be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It is against the said decision that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle preferred their appeal whereas, the claimants seek enhancement in compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Ningamma & Anr vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 13 May, 2009

12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 814 - M Sharma - Full Document

K. Ramya vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 30 September, 2022

Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 19 - S Kant - Full Document
1   2 Next