Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Section 3 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 181 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2021
In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in
"Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors." Mr. Rajan
Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal
Officer of SBI having Phone No.022-22741336/9414048606 and
email-ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non
compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A
copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal
Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court
immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi as given in the orders dated 07.12.2018.
The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of
the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail
as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi.
Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009
Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla
Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and Ors." reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
9.2 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels
for both side.
Parmeshwari vs Amir Chand & Ors on 28 January, 2011
Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla
Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and Ors." reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
9.2 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels
for both side.
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... vs Smt.Kamlesh & Ors. on 11 November, 2008
9.5 The respondent no.01/driver was the best witness
who could have rebutted the case of rashness and negligence of
driving of the offending vehicle. But, respondent no.01/driver
has chosen not to appear in witness box to disprove the case of
the petitioner side on said aspect. He has also not lead any
evidence to prove/substantiate his defence that the incident has
not happened due to rashness and negligence in driving of the
vehicle bearing registration number DL-9CAZ-4901 by him. It
is not even pleaded by the respondent side that the incident
happened due to brake failure or any other mechanical defect
beyond the control of the respondent no.01/driver. In given
circumstances, adverse inference also needs to be drawn against
the respondents. Reliance can be placed upon the decision of the
matter of "Cholamandalam M. S. General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh" 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310 on said issue.
Raj Kumar Singh & Anr vs Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors on 7 January, 2016
10.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its division
bench decision in matter of "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar &
Ors." (2011) 1 SCC 343 has held : -
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 claimant 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).
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 claimant 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).