Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.29 seconds)
The Branch Manager vs Elumalai on 8 February, 2021 cites

M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004

21.The full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2004 (1) CTC 2010 (Bulchith Kaur's case), judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (1) CTC 1 (Nagammal's case) referred to above and the judgment dated 09.10.2010 made in C.M.A.No.323 of 2011 referred to above, relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/claimant are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, the issue whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the owner of the goods or their agent who travel on the backside of the goods vehicle along with the goods is no longer res-integra. In the full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble _____ 39/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.3347, 3353 & 4450 of 2019 Apex Court reported in 2004 (1) CTC 210 referred to above, judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (2) TNMAC 79 and the judgment dated 25.09.2014 made in C.M.A.No.2825 of 2010, it has been already decided that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants as they are covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 713 - V N Khare - Full Document

North East Karnataka Road Transport ... vs Vijayalaxmi on 30 September, 2011

14.In fact, when a similar issue was referred to a Full Bench _____ 35/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.3347, 3353 & 4450 of 2019 of the Karnataka High Court, in view of divergent veiws taken by the Division Bench, in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vijayalaxmi & ors (2012 STP (Comp) 1108 KAR, the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows_ “Travelling on roof-top of the bus is pure negligence. But, unless the said negligent act contributed to the accident and consequential loss, the passenger cannot be denied the compensation. But, by such negligent act, if the passenger has contributed to the accident, the extent of his contribution has to be ascertained. To that extent, the compensation payable would get reduced. No contributory negligence or fixed percentage of contribution could be attributed to the passenger, merely because he was travelling on the roof- top of the bus. Hence, the precise percentage by which the award of compensation amount is to be reduced in a pure question of fact, to be decided by the Court, on the evidence adduced and in the circumstances of the each case.” Thus, it was held in that case that even when a person travels on the roof-top of the bus, at the maximum, some percentage of contributory negligence on the part of the victim could be fixed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next