Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)

Dinesh Kumar J. @ Dinesh J, vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 15 December, 2017

6. It is contended that as regards the finding on contributory negligence, the Tribunal has grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has contributed to the extent of 50% as regards the accident as it has merely relied upon the possession of learning licence by the petitioner and that the motor cycle was being ridden by him without any pillion rider who possessed a permanent licence. It is further contended that by relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar J Vs. National Insurance 5 Company Limited and others reported (2018) 1 SCC 750, that it should not be sufficient for mere absence of licence but it had to be further proved that absence of licence had contributed to the negligence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 48 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. vs Smt. V. Jayalakshmi, W/O. Nakulan And ... on 29 September, 2004

11. The Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar, has also opined that mere absence of licence could not be a factor ipso facto attributing to contributory negligence and it has to be further proved that this act of not possessing valid driving licence had contributed to the accident. This observation has been made in the light of the observations made in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana referred to above.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1