Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. POORNIMA
United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager – Appellant
Versus
Minor.Vincent Raj, (Minor 1st respondent rep. by his mother and guardian Jaya) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and claimant's injuries. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. background of the accident and claim details. (Para 5) |
| 3. insurer's arguments on negligence and liability. (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's analysis of negligence and evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's examination of negligence and insurance obligations. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. establishment of statutory driving license requirements. (Para 18) |
| 7. court's ruling on compensation responsibility. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
R. POORNIMA, J.
The appellant/2nd respondent Insurance company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair and decretal order dated 29.04.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.379 of 2008 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli.
2.Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimant before the Tribunal are as follows:-
(a) On 17.01.2008 at about 1.00 p.m., the petitioner was walking along with his mother at Senjudar Street, Samathanapuram on the left side mud portion. At that time, a TVS XL Super bearing registration No.TN-72-P-8492 belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent came from the opposite direction in a rash an
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
