Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sudhir Kumar Rana vs Surinder Singh & Ors on 6 May, 2008
In Sudhir Kumar Rana vs. Surinder Singh, (2008) 12 SCC 436, the
Apex Court has considered the similar case where the injured who was 17
years old, was not having Driving License. It was observed that the injured
must be guilty of an act or omission which materially contributed to the
accident and consequent injury. Where the person injured is not shown to
have contributed in any manner in the happening of the accident, it cannot
be said that it is a case of contributory negligence. It is only when the
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:VIKAS
ARORA
MAC. APP. 450/2023 & MAC. APP. 48/2024 Page 8 of 14
Signing Date:11.02.2025
22:48:09
vehicle was being driven by the injured in a rash and negligent manner, can
be held guilty of negligence. Merely because the injured does not have a
License, is not sufficient to attribute contributory negligence.
Saraswati Palariya vs The New India Assurance Company on 31 August, 2018
23. Similar observations have been made by the Apex Court in Saraswati
Palariya & Ors. vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 9114/2018, wherein it was observed that merely because a
vehicle was being driven by the deceased without a Driving License, would
not automatically make him liable for contributory negligence.
Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma & Anr on 25 September, 2014
34. The Supreme Court, in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs. Ramkaran
Ramchandra Sharma & Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 180, referred to the decision
in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2010)
10 SCC 254, and assessed the potential income of the deceased 19-year-old
student who was pursuing his MBBS as Rs. 25,000/- p.m. in the year 2002,
by observing that medical practice is one of the most sought after and
rewarding professions; there is tremendous increase in demand for medical
professionals which would lead to a rise in the salary of the doctors and that
the deceased could have pursued his M.D. after his graduation.
Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010
34. The Supreme Court, in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs. Ramkaran
Ramchandra Sharma & Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 180, referred to the decision
in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2010)
10 SCC 254, and assessed the potential income of the deceased 19-year-old
student who was pursuing his MBBS as Rs. 25,000/- p.m. in the year 2002,
by observing that medical practice is one of the most sought after and
rewarding professions; there is tremendous increase in demand for medical
professionals which would lead to a rise in the salary of the doctors and that
the deceased could have pursued his M.D. after his graduation.
Raj Bala & Anr vs Sumit Dahiya & Ors (M/S United India ... on 22 October, 2018
The Coordinate Bench of this Court, relying upon Raj
Bala (Supra), allowed the Appeal of the Claimants by observing that the
deceased had already completed his Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical
Engineering from the University and thus, a notional income of Rs. 30,000/-
per month was considered as potential income for calculating compensation.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ganga Devi & Ors. on 23 November, 2009
36. Similarly, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ganga Devi decided on
23.11.2009, a coordinate bench of this Court has taken the notional income
of a 4TH Year MBBS Student as Rs. 18,000/- per month.