Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.53 seconds)
Ms. Jyoti W/O Shri Harishanker vs Mr. Pawan Kumar S/O Shri Prehlad Singh on 11 April, 2012 cites

Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001

A roving inquiry is not required to establish the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as was held in case titled 'Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited' (2001 ACJ 421 SC) & the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a Suit No. 52/11 5/11 petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. It is also a settled law that while deciding the culpability and involvement of a vehicle in an accident, the tribunal is not required to be too technical but should decide the cases on preponderance of evidence. The present petition is on a better footing for the reason that there is eye witnesses to the accident whose testimony is on record and even the copy of Final Report filed on record also clearly reveals involvement of the offending vehicle and causing of fatal injuries to the deceased, Shri Hari Shankar due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 2652 - Full Document

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

8. According to the petitioners, the deceased, Shri Hari Shankar as conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation and his monthly income was about Rs.10,580/­. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the short term contract for engaging conductors entered into between the deceased, Shri Hari Shankar and DTC on 31.01.2011, Ex.PW­1/N. PW­1, Smt. Jyoti has also proved the copy of I­card­cum­bus pass issued to the deceased, Ex.PW­1/L and the conductor's licence issued to the deceased, Ex.PW­1/M. The learned counsel for the R­3/Insurance Company on the other hand has argued that the job of the deceased, Shri Hari Shankar was purely on contractual basis for 89 days which fact has been candidly admitted by PW­1, Smt. Jyoti during her cross­examination on 18.01.2012. The said witness has also admitted that the deceased had joined the DTC only on 01.02.2011. PW­1, Mrs. Jyoti during her cross­examination, dated 18.01.2012 has also admitted the fact that the deceased had been employed on temporary basis for a period of 89 days. Perusal of the documents clearly reveal that the deceased, Shri Hari Shankar was employed with the DTC on temporary basis and his job was Suit No. 52/11 7/11 neither permanent nor had been regularized. The monthly income of the deceased can thus be taken to be that of the minimum wage of an matriculate (as the deceased, Shri Hari Shankar had passed his high school vide certificate, Ex.PW­1/R­1) as notified by Delhi Government and the same was Rs.7,826/­ at the time of accident (20.04.2011). It can very well be presumed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation" [2009 (6) Scale 129] that the rd deceased might have been spending one­third (1/3 ) of Rs.7,826/­ on his personal expenses as the deceased had left behind three dependents i.e. his widow, minor son and unmarried sister.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993

9. I award a sum of Rs.10,60,000/­ (Rupees Ten lacs sixty thousand only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum including interim award, if any, from the date of filing the petition i.e. 28.09.2011 till realization in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. Out of the awarded amount, petitioner no. 1 shall have share of 70%, the petitioners no. 2 and 3 shall have 15% each along with proportionate interest. As the petitioner no. 2 is minor, his entire share shall be kept in FDRs for a period till he attains the age of majority. Acting on the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India G.M Kerala State Road Transport Suit No. 52/11 9/11 Corporation v/s S.Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 and in order to avoid the money being frittered away, 50% share of petitioner No. 1 shall be kept in FDR in a nationalized bank hereinafter named for a period of seven years. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the said FDRs but the petitioner no. 1 is permitted to withdraw the amount of interest quarterly on the FDRs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 4294 - G N Ray - Full Document

Amod Kumar Ray & Ors. vs Raj Kumar Chauhan And Ors. on 25 May, 2011

In terms of the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its latest judgment titled as "Amod Kumar Ray & Ors Vs Raj Kumar Chauhan & Ors" {CM(M) 649/2011 decided on 25.05.2011}, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount in the State Bank of India, District Courts Saket, New Delhi in the name of the petitioners in terms of the award and shall Suit No. 52/11 10/11 file the compliance report. It is made clear that at the time of the deposit of the award amount with the bank, the Insurance company shall specifically mention the suit no. of the case, title of the case as well as date of decision with the name of court on the back side of the cheque. The insurance company shall also file a copy of the award attested by its own officer to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 506 - R Khetrapal - Full Document
1