Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Kolavan vs Salim on 27 November, 2017
12. Again in Kolavan and Others vs. Salim and
Others [2018 (1) KLT 489] another Division Bench of this
Court has held that once charge sheet is filed, the Tribunal
MACA NO. 2476 OF 2009
6
will not be justified in finding negligence, contrary to the
findings in the charge sheet merely relying on the scene
mahazer prepared in the case, without there being any
direct or corroborative evidence.
Khenyei vs New India Assurnace Co.Ltd.& Ors on 7 May, 2015
15. Likewise, a three Bench of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. & others [(2015) 3 KHC 17] has held that in a case of
contributory negligence, it is the prerogative of the injured
claimant/legal representatives of the deceased to proceed
MACA NO. 2476 OF 2009
7
against either of the joint tortfeasors.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma (supra), the
Honourable Supreme Court has held that in the case of
instantaneous death, no amount shall be awarded under the
head 'pain and suffering'.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pazhaniammal on 20 July, 2011
11. The Division Bench of this Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pazhaniammal : [2011 (3) KLT
648] has succinctly held that, production of charge sheet is
prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose
of a claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The charge sheet can be accepted as evidence of negligence
against the accused driver. If any of the parties do not
accept such charge sheet, the burden is on such party to
adduce oral evidence and discredit the charge sheet; only
then charge sheet would fall into a pale of insignificance.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Vinish Jain And Ors Etc Etc on 23 February, 2018
29. Similarly, in New India Assurance Company
Ltd. vs. Somvathy and others : [(2020) 9 SCC 644], the
Honourable Supreme Court has held that once
compensation is awarded under the head 'loss of
consortium', no amount of compensation shall be awarded
under the head 'loss of love and affection', as it would
amount to duplication of compensation.
Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002
The said course is permissible in view of the
law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [2003 (1) KLT 115 (SC)] and
Rajesh vs. Rajbir Sing [2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)].
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
33. Even though the appellants had claimed only an
MACA NO. 2476 OF 2009
13
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the claim petition, in the light of
the law in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi (supra) that the
dependents of the deceased are entitled to future prospects
and also compensation under the conventional heads, I have
awarded more compensation than what is claimed in the
claim petition.
Sajad Saheer vs K.Rajeev on 2 April, 2012
In Sajad Saheer vs Rajeev [2017 (3) KLT SN 34
case no.45], this Court has held that there can be no
contributory negligence attributed against the pillion rider.
1