Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.34 seconds)
Munna Devi vs . Kamruzaman & Ors. on 28 February, 2023 cites

Mrs. Jamuna Uke vs State Of Chhattisgarh 121 ... on 3 November, 2017

9. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that this is a case of contributory negligence and she has relied upon the site plan as well as cross examination of PW1. On this aspect, she has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in case Ajay Kumar Vs. Deepak Kumar, MAC Appeal No. 23/2017, decided on 27.07.2017.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2807 - P K Mishra - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Kashmiri Lal And Ors. on 9 December, 2005

In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Respondent no. 3 with a cost of MACP NO. 296/17 Page 13 of 19 Rs.5,000/-.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1437 - M Mudgal - Full Document

Mangla Ram vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 6 April, 2018

11. Moreover, it is an admitted case of respondent No. 1, who in his reply to the claim petition stated that his car hit the petitioner No. 1 & her husband. It may also be noted that the charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 736 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... vs Smt.Kamlesh & Ors. on 11 November, 2008

12. Pertinently, Respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to prove his innocence regarding driving of offending vehicle in a rash and negligence manner, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no. 1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1540 - V B Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next