New India Assurance Co. And Anr. vs Gauri Shanker Sharma And Anr. on 16 August, 1984
5. Ratan Singh Karsanbhai Nakum v. Iasadkhan Gulamkhan [1975] ACJ 455 (Guj).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.89 seconds)Gsrtc vs Hargovindas R. Modi And 6 Ors. on 12 September, 2006
This is clear from the phrase Sor damages to any property of a third party so arising." This amendment in terms deals with the proposition of Madhya Pradesh High Court that where no death or bodily injury results in an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle and only loss or damage to property occurs the claim is not entertainable by the Tribunal. The Legislature has stepped in to say that such a claim if it involves loss or damage to the property to the extent of rupees two thousand is exclusively triable by the Tribunal. If it involves loss or damage exceeding rupees two thousand it is entertainable by the Civil Court at the option of the claimant, as laid down by the proviso.
Haryana State vs Pusa Ram And Ors. on 22 September, 1977
Keeping in view the intention of the Legislature, it would be proper to give a wider meaning to the word "injury" in Clause (1)(a) of S. 110--A so as to include injury to the property also. We are supported in our view by a single Bench decision of the Gujrat High Court in Ratan Singh Karsanbhai Nakum v. Isadkhan Gulamkhan, 1975 Acc CJ 455 where Desai, J. after noticing the observations in Parsubhai's case (supra) held that :
The Deputy General Manager And Divi. ... vs Jyoti Constructions, Mangalore And ... on 30 August, 1978
In fact, after the amendment, the same High Court, in the case of Ratansingh Karsanbhai Nakum v. Isadkhan Gulamkhan, 1975 Acc CJ 455 has taken the view that Claims Tribunal is competent to entertain and try a claim merely for damages to property, and that, the application could be entertained under S. 110A(1)(a) of the Act.
1