Conviction Cannot Stand On Contradictory Police Testimony Without Medical Evidence: Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused In 1993 Rioting Case Criminal Law Cannot Be Used to Criminalise Governance Decisions: Punjab & Haryana High Court Discharges Bhupinder Singh Hooda in AJL Plot Case Money Laundering Is A Continuing Offence; Even Persons Not Named In Predicate FIR Can Be Prosecuted: Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Discharge Accused In ₹13.29 Crore PMLA Case Failure To Obtain Demarcation To Ascertain Location Of Boundary Wall Fatal To Injunction Suit, Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn: Himachal Pradesh High Court When Cost Of Acquisition Is Incapable Of Determination, Capital Gains Tax Cannot Arise: Gujarat High Court On Transfer Of Self-Generated Trademarks Tenant Cannot Turn Residential Portion of SCF into Commercial Workshop Without Permission: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 | ‘Saved Permits’ Exempt From 140km Cap Until KSRTC Introduces Service: Kerala High Court Surplus Land Proceedings Cannot Be Reopened After Decades Through Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Where Two Promotional Avenues Exist, Higher Grade Must Follow the Lowest Promotional Post: Gujarat High Court Rejects Class-IV Employees’ Claim for Tradesman Pay Scale Congress MLA's Election Void For Hiding Criminal Cases: MP High Court Documents Not Foreign To Pleadings Can Be Produced During Cross-Examination: Bombay High Court Act Nowhere Mandates Certificate By Treating Doctor : Bombay High Court Revives Workman’s Compensation Claim Doctrine of Laches Is a Rule of Practice, Not a Rule of Law: Supreme Court's Comprehensive Restatement in Mizo Chiefs Case Confirmed Auction Sale Not Immune From Scrutiny on Valuation: Supreme Court Upholds Remand to DRT, Protects Bona Fide Purchaser's Rights Excise Constable Convicted for Demanding Rs. 500 Bribe Cannot Escape on 35-Year-Old Technicalities: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction, Modifies Sentence Considering Age Mere Acquaintance With Complainant Cannot Make a Witness 'Interested': Supreme Court Sets Clear Bar for Discrediting Prosecution Witnesses in Corruption Cases Sole Testimony Without Corroboration Unsafe For Conviction In Delayed Rape FIR: Supreme Court Acquits Four ED Cannot Freeze Entire Company Accounts When Sole Surviving FIR Involves Only Rs.42 Lakhs: Karnataka High Court Mahanta Cannot Sue in Personal Name for Math Property: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree

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