Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajeev Kapoor on 28 December, 2023 cites

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Premlata Shukla & Ors on 15 May, 2007

In Premlata Shukla's case (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the factum of accident could also be proved from the First Information Report and once a part of contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the parties bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that the rest of the contents have not been proved. In the said case, the FIR was exhibited as both the parties intended to rely on it. In the case at hand, the respondent No. 1 has specifically pleaded in the claim petition that 7 MA No. 48/2017 a/w connected matter on account of misinformation furnished by the driver to the Police Station, a true account of the manner in which the accident took place was never reflected in the FIR. The respondent No. 1 has placed on record the certified copy of FIR bearing No. 76/2012 but the respondent No. 1 never intended to rely upon the said FIR for the purpose of proving the factum of accident. The respondent No. 1 always intended to prove the factum of accident by leading evidence independent of the FIR annexed with the claim petition. The respondent No. 1 in all fairness placed on record the certified copy of the FIR No. 76/2012 and had he not placed on record the same before the learned Tribunal, he would have been accused of concealing the fact from the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 has, in fact succeeded in proving the factum of accident on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the appellant/Insurance Company has not been able to discredit the version of the respondent No. 1 as well as the witness Mohit Gupta examined by respondent No. 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 437 - S B Sinha - Full Document

National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Rattani & Ors on 18 December, 2008

12. The said application was opposed by the respondent No. 1 and the same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 01.12.2016. A perusal of the FIR reveals that it was respondent No. 1, who was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. The learned Tribunal after taking note of the judgments of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Premlata Shukla and others, 2007(5) Supreme 370 and National Insurance Company Limited v Rattani and others, (2009) 2 SCC 75, observed that the cases relied upon by the appellant are not applicable in the instant case. In the claim petition, it has been specifically pleaded by respondent No. 1 that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Matador. The respondent No. 1 has proved the said fact by way of his evidence in the form of affidavit. He was cross-examined by the learned 6 MA No. 48/2017 a/w connected matter counsel for the appellant/insurance company and he denied the suggestion during his cross-examination that he was driving the motorcycle at high speed and hit the matador from behind. He also denied that the accident took place because of his negligence. The respondent No. 1 also proved the factum of accident as pleaded by him in his claim petition by examining Mohit Gupta who was accompanying him. The said witness had himself suffered injuries. He also proved that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Matador. He denied the suggestion made by learned counsel for the appellant during his cross-examination that it was the motorcycle which hit the matador as a result of which, the respondent No. 1 and he suffered injuries. He also denied the suggestion that the matador was stationary and the respondent No. 1 hit the matador from behind.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 206 - S B Sinha - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022

connected matter 15,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of respondent No. 1 to be Rs. 10,500/- per month as per the salary certificate issued (marked as MG). The appellant/Insurance Company has not been able to prove that no such firm under the name and style of M/S Skyline Engineers existed or the respondent No. 1 was not working with M/S Skyline Engineers. The monthly income of Rs. 10,500/- determined by the Tribunal cannot in any manner be termed as „excessive or exorbitant‟. A perusal of the record reveals that the income of respondent No. 1 has been enhanced by 50% which in fact was required to be enhanced 40%, as the respondent No.1 was not permanent Government Employee. By enhancing the income of respondent No. 1 by 40% in view of future prospects of the earning of respondent No. 1 (see National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700), the loss of future earnings of the respondent No. 1 would be Rs. 29,98,800/-. It needs to be noted that as per the statement of Dr. Rakesh Sharma, the permanent physical disability of respondent No. 1 is 100% and he has further stated that the respondent No. 1 would not be able to do any work throughout his life and rehabilitation equipments like wheel chair has to be utilized by respondent No. 1 throughout his life. The loss of income in the case of respondent No. 1 is 100%.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1946 - J R Dua - Full Document

Vijay Kapoor & Others vs Mrs. Sudesh Kumari on 27 August, 2019

1. Both the claimant as well as the Insurance Company have impugned the award dated 18.01.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short „the Tribunal‟), titled, "Rajeev Kapoor vs Sudesh Kumar and others", whereby the claimant-Rajeev Kapoor has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 80,27,794/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum throughout till realization except on the head of loss of future income, future expenditure on medicine and expenditure for the attendants.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - F D Singh - Full Document
1