Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)
Sunny Khudania vs Manoj Kumar And Ors on 30 January, 2024 cites

Mangla Ram vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 6 April, 2018

14. Further, respondent no. 2/R2W1 during his cross examination has also admitted that the chargesheet was filed against the respondent no. 1 and the offending vehicle was seized by the police which was released to him on superdari. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 736 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... vs Smt.Kamlesh & Ors. on 11 November, 2008

15. Pertinently, Respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident or to attribute contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner/victim, but he has failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no. 1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1540 - V B Gupta - Full Document

Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009

16. It is well settled that the procedure followed for MACP No. 127/21 Page 8 of 30 proceedings conducted by an Accident Tribunal is similar to that followed by a Civil Court and in civil matters, the facts are required to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in case titled as Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 2658 - S B Sinha - Full Document

C. K. Subramonia Iyer & Ors vs T. Kunhikuttan Nair And 6 Ors on 8 October, 1969

"4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the petitioner to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 673 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995

"4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the petitioner to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1698 - N P Singh - Full Document

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

32. To apply the multiplier, it is necessary to ascertain the age of the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has tendered on record copy of his Aadhar card as Ex. PW1/9 in which his year of birth is mentioned as 1988. Further, petitioner during his cross examination has also placed on record copy of his driving license as Ex. PW1/R1/X in which his date of birth is found recorded as 03.04.1988. Hence, going by these documents, the age of the petitioner as on 20.06.2020 i.e. date of accident was around 32 years, 2 months and 17 days. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 dated 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '16' is applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of the petitioner arising out of above disability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next