Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. vs Ratna Devi And Ors. on 7 September, 1990 cites

N. K. V. Bros (P) Ltd vs M. Karumai Ammal And Ors. Etc on 21 March, 1980

(P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal 1980 ACJ 435 (SC), the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would be applicable to the case looking to the nature of the accident and the surrounding circumstances. In the latter case, the Supreme Court has observed that Accidents Claims Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We have, therefore, no doubt that the driver of the jeep was responsible for the accident, which was caused due to his rash and negligent driving. It is also noteworthy that the earlier story put forward by the driver of the vehicle that Biharilal Yadav and Krishna Narayan Dixit fought with each other in a drunken state and fell due to loss of balance on the driver as a result of which the driver lost his control over the vehicle and the accident occurred was abandoned and by amendment it was tried to be suggested that brakes of the vehicle suddenly failed and the accident took place because of this. The reason for the accident suggested earlier by the driver does not appear to be plausible and the later suggestion that the accident occurred because of failure of brakes clearly seems to be an afterthought.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 1161 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Sitaram Motilal Kalal vs Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt on 8 February, 1966

9. The next question which was argued before us was relating to the unauthorised driving of the jeep by the respondent Kanhaiyalal and that of the victims being unauthorised passengers, no compensation could be claimed for their deaths. The learned Member of the Tribunal found that the driver, Kanhaiyalal, was returning from Jhabua to Indore without taking permission from his superiors and the victims Biharilal Yadav and Krishna Narayan Dixit were travelling in the jeep without permission of the Government. However, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuprasad Jaishanker Bhatt 1966 ACJ 89 (SC), the learned Tribunal drew an inference that whenever a driver drives a vehicle entrusted to him, it would be deemed that he is driving it for his employer unless it is shown to the contrary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 110 - Full Document

Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 1977

The Tribunal has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC), wherein it has been laid down that the owner is vicariously liable for the act of his driver. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has found that the State Government was responsible for the acts of the driver, Kanhaiyalal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 516 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Sir Hukumchand & Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... on 4 January, 1966

On the point of the victims being unauthorised passengers, the learned Tribunal has relied on the decision reported in Mannalal v. State of M.P 1986 ACJ 902 (MP), wherein it is decided that even if a driver allows passengers to travel in the vehicle and takes fare from them, in case of accident and injuries to such passengers, even the owner of the vehicle is responsible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

M.S. Rayta And Anr. Etc. vs Gowrawwa Channabasappa And Anr. Etc. on 25 July, 1986

Mr. Sujan Jain, learned counsel for the claimants in this case, has placed reliance on one more decision reported in MS. Rayta v. Gowrawwa Channabasappa 1987 ACJ 846 (Karnataka). It is a Division Bench ruling of the Karnataka High Court, wherein it has been held that a driver of military goods vehicle who took fare from the passengers on the way in violation of departmental instructions would also make his employer liable to such fare-paying passengers in the truck in case of an accident. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal has held the appellants and respondent No. 6 responsible for payment of compensation to the legal representatives of the victims rightly on proper appreciation of evidence.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - M N Venkatachaliah - Full Document
1