Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: accident Court: chennai Page 21 of about 44,608 results (0.019 seconds)

State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Limited. Vs. a Saravana ...

Court : Chennai

..... of rival contentions of both sides, the following points arise for consideration:-1) whether the tribunal was right in holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of appellant transport corporation bus?2) whether the quantum of compensation awarded by ..... and referring to the filing of charge sheet and also exs.p13 and p14 - observation mahazar and rough plan, tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that appellant transport corporation is liable to be pay compensation to the ..... learned counsel for claimants submitted that it is clearly brought on evidence that the accident was on the western side of madras-tuticorin road and that ex.p14-rough plan clearly shows that the accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver and the factual finding of the tribunal that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver cannot be interfered ..... of rs.19,73,000/- awarded to the claimants for the death of deceased arumugam in the road traffic accident on 18.04.2004, appellant state express transport corporation has preferred this appeal both on liability and also ..... in the result, the compensation of rs.19,73,000/- awarded by the tribunal in m.c.o.p.no.7 of 2005 dated 18.06.2008 on the file of motor accident claims tribunal (principal district judge), tuticorin is confirmed and the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.it was stated before us that appellant-transport corporation has .....

The Managing Director. Vs. Maheswari

Court : Chennai

..... 1.uma and others) declare that to seek the benefit of contributory negligence, the transport corporation/ insurance company has to establish by substantial evidence that the accident occurred because of addition of one or more person in addition to permitted number of two riders.paragraph 8 of kattabomman transport corporation limited, represented by its managing director, vannarpettai, tirunelveli v. ..... in other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/insurance company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation ..... in that event, the fastening of 50% negligence on the rider of the motor cycle is not sustainable and therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus as proved by evidence of p.w.2 eye witness. ..... as observed earlier, except stating that 3 persons travelled in a motor vehicle, which is prohibited, no specific finding was given to the effect that travelling of three persons in a motor cycle was responsible for the accident; hence we are of the view that the conclusion in 2003 (1) m.l.j.489 is to be confined to that case. ..... the claim petition was contested by the appellant corporation contending that three persons travelled in the motorcycle and that alone caused the accident and the rider of the vehicle did not have driving licence.4. .....

R. Chitra and Another Vs. The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transpor ...

Court : Chennai

(prayer: civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, to enhance the amount awarded in m.c.o.p.no.620 of 2010, dated 10.07.2013, on the file of motor accidents claims tribunal, special sub judge-i, chennai.) 1. ..... it was further submitted that the accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the deceased and hence, contributory negligence had to be attributed. ..... he further submits that the accident had occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased and hence, contributory negligence ought to have been taken in this case and the same was not considered by the tribunal. .....

Ashokan (died) and Another Vs. The Managing Director, Maruthupandiar T ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... (prayer: this civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under section 173(1) of motor vehicle act against the judgment and award dated 06.05.2004 made in m.c.o.p.no.83/09 on the file of the motor accident claim tribunal (chief judicial magistrate) at pudukottai (which was presented before the district judge, pudukkottai, on 29.08.1997, taken on file as mcop.no.456/97 and after transfer to the court of cjm, renumbered as mcop no.83/99 for enhancement of ..... quantum of compensation, there is no dispute that the present appellants have lost their beloved young son and the accident was caused due to a rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent. ..... denied all the averments made by the appellants by stating that, despite a careful driving, due to the heavy rain and poor condition of the road, the accident had happened and therefore, they were not liable to pay compensation. 4.2. ..... even before the court below, owing to the gravity of the accident, it was demonstrated that the appellants took them their son by air to madras for treatment and further, he was also taken to vellore and ..... the mental trauma undergone by them between the date of the accident and till his death, nearly for a decade, cannot be stated in ..... not satisfied with the compensation determined by the motor accident claims tribunal, pudukottai, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred and during the pendency of the same, the claimant-appellant died, whereupon, his parents/legal heirs were brought on record .....

M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli Vs. P ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... (prayer: civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.03.2005 made in m.c.o.p.no.2176/2002 on the file of the motor accident tribunal, additional district judge, ftc no.ii, trichirappalli. ..... the death occurred instantaneously on the spot and the mother of the deceased filed a claim petition before the motor accident claims tribunal, trichy, claiming compensation. ..... under these circumstances, the driver of the lorry also committed the negligence in not using the parking light, especially at the time when the accident took place around 5 a.m. ..... ) the unfortunate fatal accident occurred on 02.05.2005 at about 5 a.m. .....

Jayasree and Others Vs. N. Lakshmanan and Another

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... counsel for the appellants/legal representatives of the deceased claimants (hereinafter referred to 'the claimants'), has drawn the attention of this court to exs.p.3, p.6, p.9, p.14, p.17 and p.28 and would submit that the deceased claimant, on account of the accident, sustained grievous head injuries and took treatment in apollo speciality hospital, madurai and hanna joseph hospital, madurai, as inpatient as well as outpatient for a considerable period of time by incurring a substantiative medical expenditure and on account of the ..... would contend that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the cause of death with the injuries sustained by the deceased claimant and admittedly, the deceased claimant died nearly after three years from the date of accident and the discharge summaries marked as exs.p.6, p.9, p.14 and p.17 and the death certificate marked as ex.p.28 coupled with the evidence of p.w.5 did not advance the case of the claimants and therefore, the tribunal has rightly held ..... the above cited discharge summaries coupled with exs.p.10, p.11, p.12, p.15, p.16, p.18, p.19, p.20, p.21 and p.24 would disclose that the treatments were also given in connection with the head injuries sustained by the deceased claimant in the road accident and except a bare suggestion that the medical bills and records have been fabricated, the second respondent insurance company did not adduce any contra-evidence to doubt the truth and veracity of the .....

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Aruppukottai Vs. ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... against the respondents claiming compensation for the death and injuries sustained by them due to the accident that took place on 05.10.1998, involving the buses belonging to the first respondent and the second respondent, insured with the third respondent. in 6 ..... of the bus belonging to the first respondent as well as r.w.2, the driver of the bus belonging to the second respondent and the report of the motor vehicle inspector and rough sketch of the place, where the accident took place, and came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by both the drivers. ..... the tribunal considering the evidence of eyewitnesses and documents exs.a1 to a5, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the ..... consideration in all these appeals are, (i) whether the drivers of both the buses are equally responsible for the accident or whether the driver of the bus belonging to the first respondent alone is responsible? ..... the tribunal did not properly appreciate the evidence of witnesses that the accident occurred when the driver of the bus belonging to the first respondent was trying to overtake an autorickshaw and dashed against the bus belonging to the second respondent, which was coming in ..... in m.c.o.p.nos.909 of 2001 and 1373 of 2000, the tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent and directed the first respondent to pay entire .....

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. M. Rajammal and Others

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, to the credit of mcop.no.82 of 2007 on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal, principal sub court, tenkasi, less the statutory deposit, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not done already. ..... delhi transport corporation reported in 2009 (2) tn mac 1 (sc), the hon'ble supreme court held that if the deceased was holding a permanent post at the time of accident, while computing the compensation, future prospects can be taken into consideration and 50% of the income has to be added, as future prospects for the purpose of computation of the loss of contribution ..... 1995 sc 755, wherein, the apex court held as follows: "in its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. ..... you can by arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact sum of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident...but nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may be given. ..... the award, made in mcop.no.82 of 2007, dated 22.01.2010, by the motor accident claims tribunal, principal sub court, tenkasi, the present appeal has been filed. .....

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Trichy ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... of this court in the above reported case, are as follows: "it is a well settled proposition of law that the judgments of the criminal courts are neither binding on the civil court/motor accident claims tribunal no relevant in a civil case or a claim for compensation under the motor vehicles act, except for the limited purpose of showing that there was a criminal prosecution which ended in ..... directed to deposit the entire award amount, with accrued interest and costs, to the credit of m.c.o.p.no.1989 of 2010, on the file of motor accidents claims tribunal,( additional district court, ftc.no.2,) tiruchirapalli, less the statutory deposit already made, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a ..... the apex court held as follows: "in its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused ..... years, parents aged about 63 and 50 years respectively filed m.c.o.p.no.1989 of 2010, on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal, trichy, claiming compensation of rs.50,00,000/- in the claim petition, they have contended that the deceased was ..... on his admission, the judgment of the criminal court becomes admissible and relevant in civil proceedings and proceedings before the motor accident claims tribunal, not because it is a judgment of the criminal court, but as a document containing an admission. .....

Maimoon Bi Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1986]59CompCas352(Mad)

..... even if he had stated in cross-examination that the second respondent purchased the lorry which is involved in the accident three months prior to the date of accident, that would not be legal evidence at all in this matter as he is not person who had any personal knowledge of the ownership ..... the learned counsel for the insurance company to give a second chance by way of remand to the tribunal below in order to prove whether there was a transfer or not on the date when the accident occurred, to say the least, is unreasonable and unjustified and could not be entertained at this stage. 5. ..... as follows : 'my husband was working in the lorry for about eight months prior to the accident and for the eight months the second respondent was the owner of the lorry.' 3. ..... certainly on the insurance company to prove that the third respondent was not the owner on the date of the accident and that the insurance company having failed to do so, they have to suffer the liability. ..... from liability on a specious plea that the policy is not in the name of the owner, it should have pleaded and proved by showing that the third respondent had transferred the vehicle when the accident took place and that having not been done, it cannot deny its liability. ..... appellant is the wife of the one mohamed ismail who met with an accident on march 7, 1981, and died as a result of the same ..... to be the person who was travelling with the deceased on the date of the accident, could not also be stated to know about the transfer. .....