Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
Smt. Shivleela And Ors. vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 17 July, 2003 cites

Vijay Singh vs Haryana Roadways And Another on 14 July, 1989

It was argued by the learned Counsel that the material on record including the statement of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was sufficient to show that the accident had indeed occurred on account of the deceased being hit by branches of some trees grown on the side of the road. The Tribunal was not according to Mr. Shetty justified in rejecting the testimony of P.W. 2 who was one of the co-passengers travelling with the deceased on the roof of the bus. Even the objections filed on behalf of the Corporation did not seriously dispute the fact that the deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained by him while he was travelling on the roof of the bus. Relying upon two decisions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Vijay Singh v. Haryana Roadways and Anr., 1990 ACJ 18 (P and H) and Manjit Kaur and Ors. v. Pepsu Road transport Corporation and Ors., 1990 ACJ 471 (P and H) Mr. Shetty argued that travelling on the top of the bus did not itself tantamount to negligence on the part of the passengers and the driver of any such bus was duty-bound to take care and caution to drive the bus at a slow speed and in a careful manner so that (sic) comes to those travelling on the roof of the bus. Alternatively, he submitted that even if the travel of the deceased on the roof of the bus was taken as an act of contributory negligence, the negligence may not be more than 20%, the remaining 80% being the negligence of the driver of the vehicle.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Smt. Mayamma vs Siddaiah And Ors. on 1 January, 2003

9. Travel by passengers on the rooftop of public transport vehicles is not unknown. It is in fact a menace, which is fraught with grave danger to the lives of those who travel carelessly on the roof of the buses or other vehicles. This Court has expressed concern about such hazardous rooftop travel in Mayamma's case, supra, relied upon by Mr. D. Vi-jayakumar. We are not sure whether the directions issued in that case have had any effect in terms of reducing the incidents of rooftop travel and thereby saving the valuable lives of those who either volunteer or forced to travel on the roof of the vehicles for a variety of reasons. More often than not such dangerous mode of travel is resorted to because of inadequacy of bus service on certain routes in the State. All that we need say is that it is high time that the authorities identify such routes and ensure that people do not have to risk their lives by getting on to the roof of the buses especially because of the insufficiency of the transport services provided to them. We may hasten to add that we should not be understood to mean that we are, pending remedial measures, approving of such rooftop travel which is by no means legal or safe for those who do so or for others who travel in their company inside the vehicle. Public transport vehicles are not meant or even suited for this kind of open-air travel without any safety measures and proper seating or other arrangements.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Gulam Khader And Another vs United India Insurance Company Limited ... on 11 July, 2000

In that view therefore, the income of the deceased could be taken at Rs. 1,000/- per month from his tuition work plus another Rs. 1,000/- per month from his musical performance in functions that he used to attend at different places to which he was invited. The annual gross income of the deceased would therefore come to Rs. 24,000/- out of which 1/3rd has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses leaving the contribution to the family at Rs. 16,000/-per annum. The deceased was, according to the evidence on record, 30 years old at the time of accident. The correct multiple applicable in terms of the decisions of this Court in Gulam Khader and Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr., 2001(1) Kar. L.J. 340 (DB), ILR 2000 Kar.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

V.S. Gowdar vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 5 April, 2002

4416 (DB) and the Full Bench decision in V.S. Gowdar v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore and Anr., 2. 2002(5) Kar. L.J. 216 (FB), ILR 2002 Kar. 2501 (FB) is 16. The loss of dependency would thus come to 16,000 x 16 = Rs. 2,56,000/-. Since however, the deceased was himself responsible to the extent of 50% for the accident in which he lost his life, his legal heirs shall be entitled to recover only the balance of 50% from the Corporation. The total loss of dependency recoverable from the Corporation therefore conies to Rs. 1,28,000/-. To sum up, the claimant shall be entitled to receive the following amount towards compensation:
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 17 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1