Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Divisional Manager, United India ... vs Dulasi Ammal And 5 Ors. on 12 June, 1997
12) I shall first deal with the objection raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company that cross-objection filed by the owner in the appeal filed by the claimants to avoid his liability, would not be maintainable. First limb of the argument is that owner can seek to avoid his liability only in his own appeal because in the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement, Insurance company is co-respondent with the owner. Reliance on judgment of the Madras High Court in Dulasi Ammal supra is wholly misplaced because that judgment was rendered in appeal filed by the insurance company, whereat the short question was only with regard to liability and the claimant-respondent wanted enhancement of compensation. In that context, Madras High Court held that the appeal be confined to the question of liability alone. The claimant cannot make claim for enhancement in the appeal, which is directed against the owner, who is his co-respondent in the appeal. No doubt, in the present appeal, insurance company is also co-respondent but herein, cross-objection is at the instance of the owner, both of whom were non-claimants/respondents in the claim petition and are also arrayed as co-respondent in the present appeal.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi & Ors on 9 May, 2005
Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanti Devi and others : 2005(3) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.) and argued that the Supreme Court had in that case despite the fact that accident took place on 4/10/1998, much prior to insertion of clause (e) in Section 10(2) w.e.f. 28/3/2001, held that driver having licence to drive a light motor vehicle is not authorised to drive a light transport vehicle.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors on 22 January, 2008
In this connection, learned counsel relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors. : MACD 2008 (SC) 83.
Section 2 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
R.K. Malik & Anr vs Kiran Pal & Ors on 15 May, 2009
In the present case, deceased was 13 years and this Court in Smt.Nana Devi supra while relying on the various judgments of Supreme Court in R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others : (2009) 14 SCC 1 and Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar : (2001) 8 SCC 197 etc.etc., has enhanced amount of compensation to Rs.2,50,000/- for the accidental death case of children between the age group of children of 10-15 years.
Sohan Lal Passi vs P. Sesh Reddy & Ors on 17 July, 1996
3) Shri Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants in this connection then referred to the definition of 'motorcab' as defined in Section 2(25) of the Act and argued that vehicle in question would fall within the category of 'motorcab'. He argued that 'motorcab' and 'motorcycle' have been excluded from the purview of 'transport vehicle' by Section 3(1) of the Act. Counsel for appellants in support of his arguments has placed reliance judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others : 2004 ACJ (1) 1. Learned counsel also relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy: 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC).
Smt Nana Devi & Ors vs Gurumel Singh & Ors on 2 November, 2011
This issue in my view is fully covered by judgment of a three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh supra, which still holds field and has not been overruled by other judgment of a bench of either equal or greater strength.