SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana 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