Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana 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