Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The High Court recorded an incongruous finding that if the offending truck had not been parked on the highway, the accident would not have happened even if the car was being driven at a very high speed. Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court on the issue of contributory negligence is riddled with inherent contradictions and is paradoxical”
Regarding appellant’s attempt to overtake a vehicle, the Court stated that he was doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. Furthermore, it was proved that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently.
Madras High Court after noting that the State Government is taking steps to conduct surprise checks, remarked that this will not stop the problem, and emphasised that assessing the level of alcohol in the blood at least in cases where accidents takes place should be made mandatory, as this will help the motor accident claims to be decided in a proper manner while determining the issue of negligence to be attributed in an accident.
Bombay High Court found driving a 70 feet long trailer without any brake light or tale lamps as a grievous negligence.
The High Court also held that the claimant is entitled to only 80% of the total compensation amount determined and is also not entitled for compensation towards loss of future earnings due to disability.
Madras High Court: In an appeal filed against the ruling of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, granting compensation to the three deceased
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi, JJ., while addressing a case of negligent driving,
Bombay High Court: Expressing that, Negligence does not always mean absolute carelessness, but want of such a degree of care as required
Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by Maharashtra SRTC, the Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B. V. Nagarathna,
Supreme Court of United Kingdom: The 7-Judges Bench comprising of Lord Reed, President Lord Hodge, Dy. President, Lady Black. Lord Kitchin, Lord
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of Pushpa Sathyanaryana and S. Kannammal, JJ., revised the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajit Singh, JJ., allowed the appeal of the claimants in
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Division Bench of Anup K Thakur (Presiding Member) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) while addressing
High Court of Republic of Singapore, General Division: Aedit Abdullah, J., while addressing the matter on contributory negligence, observed that: Having the
Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., while addressing the matter observed that: “…where there are multiple claims, MACT should place all
Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., directed the insurance company to indemnify the claimants of the deceased who died in an
Bombay High Court: The Bench of Sunil K. Kotwal, J. dismissed an appeal while modifying the award passed by the Motor Accident
High Court of South Africa, Eastern Cape Division: Plaintiff had approached this court before a Single Judge Bench of E. Revelas, J.,
High Court of Australia: In the instant case, the respondent sustained serious spinal injuries which rendered her paraplegic, when she was thrown