Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Applicant materially contributed to the complainant’s accident and there is a degree of want of care and caution which has contributed to the negligence of applicant in his act of riding his two-wheeler too close in proximity to the complainant’s two-wheeler along with his headphones on while listening to music.
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.
“The applicant submitted that he has deep roots in the society. He is a government servant and he should be given a chance to reform himself.”
Supreme Court said that the High Court did not properly consider the instant case of rash and negligent driving, and that the principle aim and object of IPC is to punish offenders.
While enhancing compensation in a motor accident claims case, the Delhi High Court opined that rash and negligent driving does not necessarily mean excessive speed. Not taking due care while driving and overtaking amounts to rash and negligent driving.
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi, JJ., while addressing a case of negligent driving,
Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by Maharashtra SRTC, the Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B. V. Nagarathna,
Supreme Court: In a case dating back to the year 1995 where a bus driver had caused an accident, thereby injuring a
Bombay High Court: Anil S. Kilor, J., decided an appeal wherein the claim petition was rejected by the Motor Accident Tribunal on certain
Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J. partly modified the award granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on being challenged. The trail of
Bombay High Court: V.M. Deshpande, J., quashed the trial court’s Judgment convicting the applicant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 279 (rash
Bombay High Court: Sarang V. Kotwal, J., held that conviction for the offences punishable under Section 279 (rash driving in a public way) and 337 (causing
Supreme Court: The Bench of N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. allowed an appeal filed by the appellant (insurer) against the
Karnataka High Court: The Dharwad Bench of Karnataka High Court recently held that over speeding is not necessary to constitute rash driving.