SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 83

P.SATHASIVAM, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Premkumari – Appellant
Versus
Prahlad Dev – Respondent


JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the

insurer was not liable as the driver had a fake licence is the

question to be decided in this appeal?

3) BACKGROUND FACTS:

One Ramdhan, who was husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who were minor children, died in a motor vehicle accident while he was going on his bicycle and hit by a truck bearing Registration No. CPW 7344 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2 herein, owned by respondent No.1 herein and was insured by respondent No.3 herein National Insurance Company. According to the appellants/claimants at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 36 years and working as a carpenter and he was getting an income of Rs.125/- to Rs.150/- per day. The claimants filed claim case No. 154 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore claiming a total compensation of Rs. 7 lacs under Sections 166A and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Respondent No.3 filed a written statement denying the claim and also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence on th


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top