H.L.DATTU, ANIL R.DAVE
SURENDER KUMAR ARORA – Appellant
Versus
MANOJ BISLA – Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.408 of 2009, dated 3.6.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi in Petition No.176/2000 dated 29.04.2009.
3. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), in a petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('the Act' for short), based on the evidence of the driver of the vehicle (respondent no.1 herein) has come to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In view of the aforesaid finding and the conclusion, the Tribunal was of the view that the Insurance Company cannot be mulcted with the responsibility of paying the insurance amount to the parents of the deceased person.
4. Disturbed by the order so made by the Tribunal, the appellants had filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, keeping in view the settled distinction between the provisions of Section 163-A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.