Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1990ACJ261; AIR1989Mad297
..... , learned counsel for the appellants, contended that this being a claim under the act, which arises out of a tortious liability, the tribunal, having found that the accident was due solely to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the second respondent, ought not to have held the appellants liable to pay compensation on ..... due to the act of a tortfeasor, the tribunal has no other option but to fasten the tortious liability on the tortfeasor alone, even though the accident might have occurred in the course of his employment and the employee would have a right to recover damages from his employer and did not choose to do so.16. ..... occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent's bus, since the deceased was an employee: under the first appellant and the accident had occurred out of and in the course of his employment, the first appellant was bound to indemnify the deceased at least to the extent of his ..... of this case, the first respondent has come forward with a positive case that though the accident had occurred during the course of his employment under the first appellant, yet the accident was due to the tortious act of the driver of the second respondent in driving the ..... 'the opening words 'notwithstanding anything contained in the workmen's compensation act,' show that a workman who has suffered a motor accident in the course of his employment in a public place, and who would be entitled to compensation from his, employer under the workmen's .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1971Mad347; [1971]41CompCas537(Mad); (1971)2MLJ354
..... and the relevant observations are as follows:--'in the present case, in two of the claims, the proprietor of the concerned vehicles has taken the plea that, prior to the date of the accident, the vehicle was transferred to another person, so that there was no subsisting legal liability on his part........therefore, it is always open to the company to urge that if such transfer be ..... that the tribunal is in error in not giving a finding as to whether the vehicle had been transferred by the second respondent in favour of a third party before the date of the accident and if so whether the appellant is liable to the claims made against it, that the tribunal was also in error in relegating the matter to a separate proceeding without deciding the basic fact ..... be insured and gets his vehicle insured on that basis, the insurer will be entitled to avoid liability if the owner of the vehicle has transferred the vehicle to another before the accident, and that notwithstanding the fact that the registry under section 31 continued in the name of the insured the contract of insurance and along with it the liability of the insurer to ..... insurance against third party risk helps third parties to believe that if they, through no fault of their own, have the misfortune to be injured or killed by a motor accident, they or their dependents would be certain of recovery of damages even though the wrong-doer is an impecunious person the provisions intended to effectuate the compulsory insurance cannot, by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1982Mad72
..... the learned advocate general appearing for the appellant pallavan transport corporation does not question the finding of the tribunal that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the pallavan transport bus by its driver, but has questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded on the ground that the award ..... 25 lakhs, from the pallavan transport corporation, on the ground that he had lost the commission on account of the accident the respondent does not dispute the fact that the entire orders were procured from overseas by kantilal because of his spade work and his letters of introduction even ..... has become entitled to the payment of commission from the transworld trading corporation cannot give up that claim and seek to proceed against the pallavan transport corporation on the ground that it is because of the accident he could not make the foreign trip and thus he had lost the benefit of the commission. as ex. p. ..... but in this case, the mere fact that the respondent was injured in an accident and was being treated in the hospital for some time cannot be taken to disable him in procuring the export orders as was originally intended by visiting those ..... therefore, the respondent cannot say that because of the accident he could not procure the orders by making the trip later on after getting treatment for ..... rival contentions the tribunal has set down the following two questions for consideration: (1) was the accident due to the rash and/or negligent driving of the bus? .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1982Mad223; (1982)1MLJ149
..... the said claim was opposed by the first respondent on the ground that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, that the accident was due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased himself and that in any event, the compensation claimed was excessive. ..... the insurer, the second respondent, resisted the claim petition contending that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased himself, and that the accident having occurred inside the express estate which is not a public place, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.5. ..... the facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension. ..... "employment injury" has been defined as a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and or in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of india. ..... in this appeal filed by the claimants the only two questions that arise for consideration are (1) whether the accident occurred in a public place so as to make the insurer liable for compensation in relation thereto. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1967CriLJ1521
..... we have therefore to consider, could the motorist in this case have avoided the accident by any precaution which he could have taken ahead, or at or before the moment of collision acting as a reasonable man ..... his case is that the failure of tames was sudden and totally unforeseen, noticed just before the accident and that he acted in a manner in which one could be expected to act in such circumstances ..... in his statement, he denies driving the car at full speed and states that the accident was the result of sudden failure of the brakes. ..... is not a case where the boy darted in front of the vehicle and the motorist who should have expected it and who had an opportunity to avert it by applying brakes, failed to do so or could not avert the accident by reason of excessive speed in relation to the locality. ..... have, therefore, to consider whether the version of the accident as given by the petitioner is likely or probable. ..... among the eye witnesses to the accident, reference may be made to the evidence of p. ..... petitioner immediately returned back to the scene of accident the boy dying in 15 minutes. ..... the evidence which has been considered by me, no act or omission has been suggested which the man at the wheel could have taken or made, that would have avoided the accident in the instant case.12. ..... on the dale of the accident, has stated that the person in the car applied brakes but that the car proceeded without stopping and halted in front of the shop, near about the northern pedestrian crossing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1981Mad174; [1983]54CompCas600(Mad)
..... claim petition before the tribunal was that they are not, liable to meet the claims for compensation, that the lorry had been transferred in favour of the second respondent on 17-4-1971 and the accident having taken place on, 9-7-1971, neither the first respondent, the original owner of the vehicle nor the third respondent, insurance company are liable to meet the claim and that it is only the ..... : air1966mad244 held that notwithstanding the fact that the registry and the permit of the vehicle had not been transferred on the date of the accident, the transferor cannot be made liable if the vehicle had in fact been transferred to the transferee and that if the accident had happened after the vehicle had been transferred and when it was in the custody and possession of the transferee, the transferee alone is ..... in the name of the second respondent within the meaning of law and as the transfer was admittedly not effected in the records of the regional transport authority on the date of the accident, the insurance company would continue to be liable under the policy in dealing with this question, the tribunal relying on a decision of division bench of this court in bhoopathy v. ..... sold by the first respondent to the second respondent was false that on enquiries it was learnt that the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and that the certificate of registration and the public carrier permit stood in the name of the first respondent at the relevant date. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1991ACJ45
..... in respect of the lorry stood in the name of kandasamy, the vendor of the appellant, although the registration certificate had been changed in the name of the appellant long before the taking place of the accident, the insurance company continued to be liable on the basis of the policy issued in favour of kandasamy, as lapse of a policy on transfer of the vehicle is not one of the permissible defences under section 96 ..... it is thus seen that on the facts of that case, there were valid and operative covers for the vehicles at the time of the accident and when the insurer attempted to raise defences falling outside section 96 (2) of the motor vehicles act, the supreme court pointed out that the insurance company cannot be permitted ..... cannot be compelled to accept responsibility in respect of a third party unknown to them and as the insurance company has not issued a policy to the then owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, it is not precluded from raising pleas in defence other than those mentioned in section 96 (2) of the motor vehicles act. ..... by way of compensation and that as the vehicle responsible for causing the accident had not been insured with the fifth respondent on the date of the accident, no liability could be fastened on the fifth respondent for payment of compensation ..... consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the tribunal found that the accident took place owing to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry belonging to the appellant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1994ACJ118
..... in any manner assist the corporation, for it has been found on an appreciation of the evidence relating to the manner in which the accident took place that there was lack of care and caution on the part of the driver of the bus tml 8364 and the accident could be regarded as one which had taken place as a result of the operation of the natural forces which no human foresight can provide ..... it is not in dispute that even prior to the disposal of the claim petitions by the claims tribunal, at the instance of the corporation, the issue whether the accident was an act of god or was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus tml 8364 by its driver was tried as a preliminary issue and a ..... an act of god, the tribunal took the view that having regard to the weather conditions that prevailed on the day of the accident, the driver of the bus tml 8364 should not have ventured to proceed over the narrow bridge on tondiyar river and that the corporation was also ..... and at that time, the bridge gave way and the bus tml 8364 as well as the lorry tmw 9509 were swept away and the accident thus took place on account of an act of god and unexpected forces which could not be reasonably anticipated by human agency. ..... on further appeal to the supreme court, the court pointed out that merely because the cause of the accident was heavy rain and floods, the highways department could not be absolved of its liability, unless something further is indicated that necessary preventive measures had been taken .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)IILLJ233Mad
..... even in cases where the personal injury has not resulted in death, the proviso lays down that the employer shall not be liable for an injury caused by accident (even though arising out of and in the course of the employment) only if the following conditions concur:--(i) the injury must not have resulted in the death of the workman. ..... the additional commissioner for workmen's compensation held that first of all the conduct attributed to the deceased workman was not proved; and secondly, in a fatal accident such alleged acts of negligence or carelessness would not prevent the dependants of the deceased workman from claiming compensation under section 3(1) of the act. ..... been disobeyed.sixthly, the disobedience must have been wilful, neither, for example, merely negligent nor due to a mistaken mode of doing a particular task, nor due to a wrong decision in an emergency, but deliberate.seventhly the accident (causing the injury, not resulting in death) must have been directly attributable to the disobedience : khairoj jama v. ..... where, however, an injury has resulted in the death of a workman and has been caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, it would be immaterial that the workman (a) was at the time of the accident under the influence of drink or drugs or (6) wilfully disobeyed any order or rule expressly made for the safety of workman, or (c) wilfully removed or disregarded any safety guard or other device knowing to have been provided for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1977)2MLJ335
..... case of the injury was not associated with negligence on his part.in the above cited supreme court case, the driver was in the management of the vehicle and the accident was such that it would not happen in the ordinary course of things and there was no evidence as to how the truck caught fire and there was no explanation by the defendant about it. ..... act clearly defines the period of transit as stated above, even if there was no rule in existence in 1964, in this respect, we can safely conclude that the position on the date of the accident in this case was that the period of transit terminated only on the expiry of the free time allowed for the removal of the good? ..... function of the maxim is to prevent injustice which, would result if a plaintiff were invariably compelled to prove the precise cause of the accident and the defendant responsible for it even when the facts bearing on these matters are at the outset unknown to him and often within ..... fire would not have occurred if the railway authorities had taken all reasonable care and precaution for the safety of the goods unloaded and that the accident was entirely due to want of due care and caution and neglect of duty on the part of the local railway officials. ..... there are authorities holding that once the defendant has furnished evidence of the cause of the accident consistent with his having exercised due care, it becomes a question whether upon the whole of the evidence, the defendant was negligent or not and the defendant will .....
Tag this Judgment!