Back
2004(1) Supreme 61
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., D.M. Dharmadhikari & S.B. Sinha, JJ.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. -Petitioner
versus
Savitri Devi & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 171 of 2004 CC 5282/2003
Decided on 5-1-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kiran Suri, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
This Special Leave Petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 7.10.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner herein questioning an award made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala was dismissed. The High Court passed the said order on the ground that the Petitioner has been permitted to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. On a perusal of the award impugned before the learned Tribunal it appears that a finding of fact has been arrived at that the vehicle in question was driven by the first respondent without valid and effective licence as on the date of the accident. While answering issue No. 3 that as to whether insurance company is not liable to make any payment of compensation on account of the preliminary objections taken by it in its written statement, the learned Tribunal observed that although the Petitioner is liable to pay compensation to the claimant, it may recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any merit in this petition and is dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
*****************
00021
00022
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
