Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.82 seconds)Section 95 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Section 110F in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Section 110B in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 110A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Swaraj Motors Private Ltd., Kottayam vs T.R. Raman Pillai And Anr. on 1 December, 1967
In this connection also the learned Tribunal relied upon Swaraj Motors Private Ltd. v. T.R. Raman Pillai, 1968 Acc CJ 127 = (AIR 1968 Ker 315). In this case, there was a compound fracture of both the bones of the leg. The claimant was an advocate earning Rs. 500/- per month. His leg was shortened by 1 1/2" and there was 90° flexion on the knee and complete stiffness of the ankle joint and foot resulting in limping. An Award of Rs. 7,200/- for loss of income was held to be quite moderate.
State Of Punjab And Anr. vs Smt. Phool Kumari And Ors. on 23 April, 1962
47. On the other side, it was contended that the case of State of Punjab v. Phool Kumari AIR 1963 Punj 125 was not followed in Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Manjusri Raha 1968 Acc CJ 1 (Madh Pra) wherein a distinction was drawn between a 'contributory negligence' and a 'composite negligence'. The contributory negligence applies solely on the conduct of the plaintiff. It means that there has been an act of omission on his part, which has materially contributed to the damage. Where a person is injured without any negligence on his part but as a result of the combined effect of the negligence of two other persons, it is not a case of contributory negligence in that sense. It is a case of what has been styled as composite negligence. The learned Judges quoted the following from "Pollock on Tort" at page 362: "where negligent acts of two or more independent persons have between them caused damage to a third, the sufferer is not driven to apply any such analysis to find out whom he can sue. He is entitled, of course, within the limits set by the general rules as to remoteness of damage to sue all or any one of the negligent persons. It is no concern of his whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between those persons though in any case he cannot recover in the whole more than his whole damage. The phrase of 'contributory negligence of a third person" which has sometimes been used, must, therefore, be rejected as misleading."
Subash Chander And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 12 January, 1973
In Subash Chandra v. State of Haryana AIR 1974 Punj 54 the court observed that it is essential before holding the insurer liable in the case of death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a private car that firstly, there should be a judgment against the insured and secondly, the judgment must be in respect of a liability which is required to be covered by a policy under the provisions of Section 95 (1) (b) and thirdly, the liability was in fact covered by the terms of the policy. In this case the policy was in a printed form provided by the Life Insurance Corporation of India but it was mentioned in the last column of the Schedule that only third party risk has been covered. The life Insurance Corporation had further proved that the passenger's risk was not covered by this policy, if such risk were covered extra premium was chargeable and no such premium has been paid by the insured.