Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1974)2MLJ204
..... the third clause enables the insurance company to disclaim liability in cases where during the accident the vehicle was driven by a person who might not hold a valid licence at the time of the accident, but who had held a licence previously, but who had not been disqualified for holding or obtaining it. ..... it is contended on behalf of the insurance company that by virtue of the provisions of section 96, the insurance company is exonerated of the liability to cover an accident caused by a driver, who did not hold an effective licence on the date of the accident, though prior to the date of the accident he might have held a valid licence and on the date of the accident he was not disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. ..... this clause clearly contemplates a person who, although he had obtained a licence which expired prior to the accident, did not hold a valid licence on the date of the accident, and yet was not disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence. ..... the first clause permits an insurance company to rid itself of the liability by providing that if an accident, occurs while a named person drives the vehicle, the company shall not be liable to indemnify the owner. ..... the second clause enables the insurance company to disclaim liability in cases where at the time of the accident, the driver is a person who does not hold a licence duly granted to him. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)1MLJ115
..... the suit, but ordered..in the peculiar circumstances without costs; so too, i direct the 1st defendant to pay the court-fee payable to the government because the deceased met with the accident in his anxiety to carry out immediately repairs to sky wrecker.while the plaintiffs appealed against the dismissal of the suit, the first defendant appealed against the order directing him to pay ..... of the defendant, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is said to apply, and the plaintiff will been titled to succeed unless the defendant by evidence rebuts that probability.in the case of fatal accident, thus, when the victim of the accident himself is no more to disclose all the facts, and his heirs and legal representatives know not how the death occurred, beyond knowing that he suffered ..... of his own negligence as alleged in paragraph 11 of the written statement, and proceeded to examine the same by stating as follows:really the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish that the unfortunate accident took place solely due to the negligence of the 1st defendant; only then, will the plaintiffs be entitled to sustain their claim for damages as against the 1st defendant, the employer of the ..... . the learned trial judge has thus committed error of law in saying that the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish that the unfortunate accident took place solely due to the negligence of the first defendant and only then will the plaintiffs be entitled to sustain their claim for damages as against the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2(1988)ACC272
..... respondent and insured with the third respondent herein was at fault and the driver of the said lorry drove the same rashly and negligently at the time of the accident as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries to which he succumbed the finding of the tribunal on this point of rashness and negligence is hereby set ..... evidence on the points framed by it and come to a definite conclusion both with respect to rashness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and/or the injured/deceased as a result of the accident as well as the quantum of compensation that has to be determined together with the points of law raised by either side during the course of trial before the ..... the claimants or the respondents or the owners of the vehicle or the companies which own the vehicle that is alleged to have committed rashness and negligence resulting in the accident, it is for the tribunal to decide as to who was responsible for the accident in other words, the element of rashness and negligence has to be gathered by scrutinising the evidence available on record and carefully analysing the same so as to come to ..... by the tribunal.3 in the circumstances, therefore, the point that arises for determination in this appeal in which lorry was at fault which resulted in the accident; in other words, which lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner so as to result in a collision; and what is the amount of compensation that is due and payable to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1974)2MLJ364
..... insurer did not take the objection before the tribunal that it was not liable to cover the risks involved in the case, because the driver of the bus had no valid licence at the time of the accident, this objection has been taken before us on foot of an admission made by the driver of the bus himself, r.w.1, to the effect that though he had been holding a licence previously, he had failed to renew the licence for ..... if, as in this case, all the conditions laid down in the section are not reproduced in the policy, and the policy positively undertakes to cover liability in respect of an accident caused by a person, who though not having an effective licence at the time of the accident, has not been disqualified to hold a licence, the company cannot, in disregard of its policy, fall back upon the section and say that despite the contract it has entered into to the ..... the third clause enables the insurance company to disclaim liability in cases where during the accident the vehicle was driven by a person who might not hold a valid licence at the time of the accident, but who had held a licence previously, but who had not been disqualified for holding or obtaining ..... , has made the following observations:the word 'duly licensed' in section 96 (2) of the act clearly goes to show that in order to attract the terms of the policy, the driver of the vehicle, on the date of the accident, must be a person who is duly licensed or who is not disqualified for holding or detaining a driving licence. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1983Mad197; [1987]61CompCas339(Mad); (1983)2MLJ361
..... on the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that whatever be the capacity of the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident, the driver of the bus had not taken care to see to it that the vehicle could not be moved in his absence and had, therefore, not conformed to ..... their absence, the bus had been driven by sengodan without any permission and without holding a valid driving licence for driving the vehicle and that was responsible for the accident and, therefore, as the vehicle had been driven by an unauthorised person, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company. ..... of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, it is established beyond doubt that the accident was the outcome of the negligent act on the part of the driver (r. w. ..... should have left the ignition key to enable him to do so and that while sengodan was acting on behalf of the drive, ignorant of taking the bus on reverse, he should have cause the accident by driving it straight into the cycle shop belonging to the first respondent. ..... the appellant as the owner of the vehicle would undoubtedly be liable for the accident that had been caused by the negligence of his own servant r. w. ..... act is required to move a stationary bus, the mere leaving of a vehicle even with the keys intact would not be per se objectionable and, therefore, the appellant cannot be held responsible for the accident or for the sustaining of damages by the first respondent as a result thereof. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)2MLJ19
..... 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 ..... 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 ..... 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 (b) willfully disobeyed any order or rule expressly made for the safety of workmen, or (c) wilfully removed or disregarded any safety guard or other device knowing to have ..... the act itself was founded on the german system of insurance of workmen against accident happening in the course of their employment, a system which has since been largely accepted by ..... section 3(1) of the workmen's compensation act runs thus:if personal injury is earned to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1925Mad304
..... line from the south and that the was hit on the right side by the engine this accords with the statements of the eye-witnesses who profess to have seen the accident and with her own account there is evidence that people living in the neighbourhood were in the habit of crossing the railway line first over the overbridge and then from the ..... him and the defendants solely by the defendants' negligence in this sense, that ha him-soll was not guilty of any negligence which contributed to the accident, yet if the plaintiff also was guilty of negligence which contributed to the accident, so that the accident was the result of the joint negligence of the plaintiff and of the defendants, then the plaintiff cannot recover, it being understood that if the defendants' ..... injuries the cause of action generally is negligence ; that is to say, the charge against the defendant is to the effect that though the defendant was, at the time when the accident happened which caused the injury, doing something not in itself unlawful he was guilty of negligence in the doing of it, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. ..... in spite of the negligence or, as it is called, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, the defendant could even then by the exorcise of ordinary care have avoided the accident and injury, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover not because he was not negligent but only because the negligence that proximately caused the injury was the negligence, not of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)1MLJ587
..... not 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 against ..... 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 further precluded from ..... had also stopped 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. ..... even prior to the disposal of the claim petitions by the 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. ..... 6n 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 in anticipation of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1991ACJ673
..... on consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the tribunal found that deceased raman was not in any manner responsible for the accident, but that the accident was caused only by the negligence and carelessness of the driver of the lorry belonging to the appellant, that the accident took place within the petrol bunk premises and, therefore, the compensation amount of rs. ..... pw 2, who was working in the petrol bunk and was not on duty on the day when the accident took place, in the course of his chief-examination, stated that deceased raman was sleeping on the road and that the lorry belonging to the appellant took a wrong turn and ran over him. ..... learned counsel for the appellant first contended that the evidence clearly establishes that the accident took place outside the petrol bunk premises and, therefore, the third respondent, insurance company, would be liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal. ..... applying the principle laid down in the decisions referred to earlier, it has to be held that the accident in this case did not take place in a public place and, therefore, the third respondent, insurance company, cannot be fastened with liability for the payment of compensation to respondent nos. ..... the third respondent, insurance company, in its counter, besides adopting the counter of the appellant, put forth the plea that the accident did not happen in a public place and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the insurance company.3. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1994ACJ1225
..... the law does not place an additional burden upon the applicant to prove that the peril which the employee faced and the accident which arose because of that peril which was not personal to him, but was shared by all the employees or the members ..... context, the learned judge observed as follows : the only question that calls for consideration is whether it can be said that the accident arose out of the employment or whether there was any connection, causal or otherwise, between the death and the employment of the workman ..... rajkumar mills : (1959)iillj65mp , compensation claim was rejected on the ground that the death of the victim not caused by an accident arising out of his employment, there, all that was known was that the deceased workman died of heart failure during his employment and that he was suffering from heart diseased but ..... it is because of this that the authorities have made it clear that the casual connection between the accident and the employment which the applicant has to establish is not a remote or ultimate connection, but a connection which is ..... , it can well be said that a causal connection was established between the accident and the employment and the accident had occurred on account of the risk which was an incident of the employment ..... the appellant contends that the death of the deceased was not at all due to an accident and that even assuming it was due to an accident, it cannot be said that the accident arose out of and in the course of her employment. .....
Tag this Judgment!