CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Where one party's negligence places another in danger, forcing that other to act quickly to save himself, this does not constitute contributory negligence – SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In this case, husband of the 1st appellant was travelling, dashed against a lorry that was going in front, when the driver of the lorry allegedly stopped it suddenly without any signal or indicator. The victim suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. On the issue relating to the cause of the accident, the Tribunal concluded as per police records that the lorry into which the car collided, had been parked without putting any indicator or signal on NH­4. But at the same time the Tribunal concluded, based on the final report filed by the police against the drivers of the lorry as well as the car, that the driver of the car was also equally negligent.  Therefore, the Tribunal first held that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both vehicles and fixed 50% as the factor of contribution. Since the Tribunal held the driver of the car equally negligent contributing to the accident, the Tribunal divided the aforesaid amount by two and awarded a compensation of Rs.16,72,800/­. Aggrieved by the order Appellants approached the High Court but order of Tribunal was upheld by the High Court. Appellants approached the Apex Court. Appellants claim in the finding of contributory negligence is arbitrary and unjustified and (ii) that the Tribunal and High Court failed to consider the appellants' prospects considering the law laid down in. There was nothing on record to indicate that the driver of the car was not driving at moderate speed nor that he did not follow traffic rules. On the second question, the Tribunal merely allowed 10% as additional weightage, for the reason that the deceased had a bright future. Apex Court held that while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Appeal Allowed.

October 06, 2021

SMT. K. ANUSHA & ORS. VERSUS  REGIONAL MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

Latest Legal News