allowed the claim petition preferred by the legal heirs of the
deceased driver under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
::: Downloaded ... Ramkhiladi 's case supra, a
contention was raised that the deceased driver of the motor cycle
was not a third party with respect
goods vehicle owned by respondent No. 6 on 14.08.2017. The
said deceased-driver has been stated to be the employee of respondent ... deceased was employed as a driver and that the said driver
died in the accident and that the driver was drawing Rs. 8000/- per month
Page No 1 of 39
3. Sh. Monu Kumar (Deceased Driver)
Since deceased, through LRs
R/o 84, Garhi, Pilkhuwa, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh ........ Respondents
Date ... speed and in a rash
and negligent manner as a result deceased driver lost control
of the vehicle which turned turtle and fell into
Page No 1 of 39
3. Sh. Monu Kumar (Deceased Driver)
Since deceased, through LRs
R/o 84, Garhi, Pilkhuwa, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh ........ Respondents
Date ... speed and in a rash
and negligent manner as a result deceased driver lost control
of the vehicle which turned turtle and fell into
Nahir @ Nahid W/O Sh. Amzad vs Rajesh (Since Deceased) (Driver & ... on 27 July, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR GULIA ... Ambedkar Park,
Trilokpuri, Delhi110091. ..........................Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajesh (since deceased) (driver & owner)
Through LRs
1(a). Parveen W/o late Sh. Rajesh
could be
decided or not.
3. The legal heirs of the deceased driver, were the claimants filed
application under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation ... deceased driver was employed by the fourth respondent Karuppuswamy
and the vehicle met with an accident and the driver sustained grievous
injury and died subsequently
crime and the deceased, as unknown
miscreants wanted to rob the vehicle and when the deceased-driver tried to reverse
the vehicle and flee from ... happens to be the wife of the deceased stated that the deceased
was a driver of the aforesaid vehicle, whose income
Workmen
Compensation Act was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased driver of
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited. The accident occurred on
21.12.2011 at about ... when the deceased driver was driving a
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that on 26.02.2012 at about 9.45 a.m. when the deceased
driver - Y.T.Madhu @ Madhu Kumar, S/o. Thimmappa was
driving the maxi ... even though there is
no negligence on the part of the
deceased driver in causing the accident,
hence this respondent is not liable
evidence, held that accident occurred due to negligence of both the deceased,
driver of the Omni Van as well as the driver of the Lorry ... ought to have
fixed entire negligence on the part of the deceased/driver of the Omni Van.
The Tribunal failed to consider that the respondents
