Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v Usha Bhagchandani & ors.

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Coram-

Justice kurian Joseph

Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar

Negligence is the cause for several motor vehicle accidents causing severe injury to people. The compensation is awarded to the party injured. But, this is the broader understanding of the concept. The establishment of negligence would depend upon two different aspects. One is on Contributory Negligence and other is on Comparative Negligence. Contributory negligence can be characterized as the responsibility of a person to look for one’s self. The negligence would amount when the person has caused injury due to an unreasonable conduct irrespective the other party was involved in the accident or not. Recently the hon’ Supreme Court of India held on the basis of this concept where the principle was contributory negligence was not in part of the driver.

Facts-

The brief facts of the case as follows:

The claimant suffered 100% permanent disability while travelling on her way to the Haridwar in 2006. The claimant travelling in the tax met with an accident with the stationary truck. The appeal was heard by the two judge bench Justice Kurien Joseph and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar. The appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against the 2017 judgment of the Delhi High Court. The premise of the appeal was on the contention that the contributory negligence on part of the taxi driver was not established which was refused by the Hon’ Supreme Court of India. The Insurance Company raising the contention that the part of contributory negligence against the taxi driver was not established on the premise that the claimant conceded that while the collision she was asleep failing to narrate the sequence of events.

Issue-

Whether contributory negligence can be established against the taxi driver?

Findings-

The Supreme Court observed that it was the failure on part of the Insurance Company on failing to bring forth the taxi driver, owner and insurance company in the party array. The MACT and the Delhi high Court awarded compensation to the claimant and the High Court refused to accept the contention raised by the insurance company of the claimant being asleep during the collision leading to the unavailability to narrate the sequence of events. The Supreme Court allowed the additional 30% on the pretext of the claimant suffering 100% permanent disability. The decision moreover laid that contributory negligence as contended by the appellant cannot be established against the taxi driver. Hence, the appeal was disposed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -