Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-26-1958
Reported in : AIR1960Kant105; AIR1960Mys105
..... district judge to presume that eswararaju would have lived until he retired. he has also pointed out to us that eswararaju, before he died, had insured his life for rs. 2,000/- and that that must be regarded as a correct estimate of the loss to which his family would be exposed if he ..... the view taken by the high court of madras in gobald motor service ltd. v. velusami, : air1953mad981 and the high court of calcutta in baijnath v. corporation of calcutta, : air1933cal178 .(25) in this case, while it is established that defendant 2 did drive the lorry on that day with such rashness and negligence ..... that the plaintiffs have established that degree of negligence on the part of defendant 2 which would make defendant 1 bear the consequences of the negligent act which caused damage to them.(26) in that view of the matter, the plaintiffs are undoubtedly entitled to recover compensation from defendant 1 for the ..... as would make defendant 1 his master responsible for the consequences of such act, defendant 1 has adduced no evidence whatsoever justifying a finding that the accident did not arise from want of care on the part of defendant 2 ..... case that defendant 2 was driving the lorry of defendant 1 at the time the accident occurred and that when he was so driving the lorry, he was acting within the sphere of his employment with defendant 1.(21) in london county council v. cattermoles (garages), ltd., (1953) 2 all er 582, sir .....
Tag this Judgment!