T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Shaik Ameenabee – Appellant
Versus
Pushadapu Koteswara Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2005 in M.V.O.P. No.842 of 2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Markapur (for short “the tribunal”), the claimants preferred this appeal not fastening the liability on the insurance company and also not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. For convenience's sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.
3. It is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) claiming compensation for Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Shaik Mahaboob Pera (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased').
4. It is not in dispute that the deceased is the husband of the first claimant, the father of claimants 2 to 4.
5. The claimant's case is that on 26.04.1998 at about 02.00 PM, the deceased and some others stayed at the Devarajugattu bus stop to go to Markapur. At that time, the lorry bearing No.AP12T5095 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') stopped there. All the persons, incl
Amritlal Sood vs Kaushalya Devi Thakar
Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another
Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd., v. Nanu Ram
Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Baljit Kaur and Others
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni and another
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.)
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.