Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)
Ms. Kirti Singh vs Sh. Chirag Ahlawat on 1 February, 2019 cites

Vinod Kumar @ Bittoo vs Roshni & Ors. on 5 July, 2012

25. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under:­ " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 13 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 483 - G P Mittal - Full Document

M.S. Middle High School vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 22 November, 2017

31. It may be noted that as per verified copy of DL in the name of respondent no. 1, would show that same is shown to be valid for the category of SC;TW;LMV;AR. It is also relevant to note that in response to summons issued to concerned DTO from whose office the said DL was purportedly issued, report dated 31.03.18 had been received under the signature of DTO, Bishnupur District, Manipur alongwith attested copies of relevant pages of DL issuing register, containing entry with regard to DL in favour of R1. According to said report, said DL had been issued in favour of R1 for the category of SC/LMV/AR having validity from 08.11.12 to Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 17 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 07.11.15. That being so, I am of the view that it can not be said that there was no valid DL in favour of respondent no. 1 for the category of LMV(NT) and the offending vehicle is car which falls in the category of LMV(NT). Nevertheless, it is duly established on record that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending car under the influence of liquor and that is why, he is shown to have been charge­sheeted for offence u/s. 185 M.V. Act. As already noted above, the entire testimony of R3W1 has gone unchallenged from the side of insured, who also failed to lead any evidence and rather preferred to stay away from the proceedings throughout the inquiry. Hence, it is held that due to said reason, there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured. Thus, insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against respondent no. 2. (Reliance placed on decision dated 26.09.2017 in FAO no.7555/2015 in the matter titled as "MS Middle High School and another Vs. Usha and others" by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP no.31406/2017 titled as "MS Middle High School Vs. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. & others" decided on 22.11.2017). Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 109 - Full Document
1