Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.19 seconds)
National Insurance Company vs Kastoori Devi And Ors. And Shanti Devi ... on 2 March, 1987 cites

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, ... vs Qimat Rai Jain And Ors. on 30 April, 1984

In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala v. Qimat Rai Jain and Ors. ; a passenger was keeping an arm on window of the bus, it was held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the passenger. Both drivers of the bus and the truck were rash and negligent and their liability was joint and several including that of the Insurance Company.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Suraj Narain And Anr. And New India ... vs Kumari Sneh Lata Jain And Ors. on 24 August, 1984

Suraj Narain and Anr. v. Sneh Lata Jain and Ors. 1985 ACJ 581, is a case decided by learned Single Bench of this Court. In this case Bus RRL 3804 driven by Tara Chand collided Bus RRL 8548 driven by Suraj Narain. The hand of Miss Sneh Lata kept outside the bus in RRL 8548 was cut in the accident. The Tribunal fixed liability of Bus RRL 8548 as 2/3rd and that of bus RRL 3804 as l/3rd. It was held to be a case of composite negligence of both the bus drivers and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It was held that strict principles of pleadings cannot be applied in such cases and Motor Vehicles Act which provides provision for insurance and compensation are parts of social welfare legislation for giving benefits to the public at large.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

The United India Fire And General ... vs Mst. Sayar Kanwar And Ors. on 6 April, 1976

12. It has been held in The United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., and Anr. v. Mrs. Sayar Kanvar and Ors. 1976 ACJ 426 by a Division Bench of this Court that there is a difference between a composite negligence and contributory negligence. In case of composite negligence liability cannot be apportioned. We are clearly of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case merely because Arvind Kumar was carrying 3 more persons on the pillion of the motor-cycle, it cannot be inferred that he was responsible for contributory negligence in the accident. The motor-cycle was insured comprehensively as is evident from Ex. AW 15/1 the policy of National Insurance Company. Such policies cover the risk of any person including third party and as such it would cover the risk of the driver of the motor-cycle as well as of the pillion riders. It was a case of composite negligence of the drivers of motor cycle as well as the truck as such insurance companies of both the vehicles would be liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 27 - Cited by 60 - Full Document
1   2 Next