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

2012 Supreme(SC) 244

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




















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