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

1990 Supreme(Kar) 389

M.RAMAKRISHNA RAO, M.P.CHANDRAKANTARAJ
K. S. SUBRAMANIAN – Appellant
Versus
A. THOMAS ROSS – Respondent


Advocates:
G.KASTURI, G.S.VISHVESHVARA, S.VIJAYASHANKAR

CHANDRAKATRAJ, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are disposed of by the following common order as they arise out of the same judgment and award of the accidents claims tribunal, chickmagalur, (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) in mvc. No. 135/1985.

( 2 ) M. F. A. No. 531/1988 is by the owners of motor vehicle bearing registration mark myc. 3993. Aggrieved by the liability foisted on them jointly and severally to the exclusion of the liability of the insurance company which was the 3rd respondent before the tribunal. Mfa. No. 1068/1990 is by one of the victims of the accidents, aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded as contended by him.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts may be statedand they are as follows. The petitioner appellant in mfa. No. 1068/1990 in the claim petition before the tribunal under sec. 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) pleaded that while he and his brother-in-law wore standing near the compound of the building of the Karnataka electricity board at kadur on the Bangalore honnavar road waiting for a passenger bus in order to go to hassan, the lorry bearing registration mark myc 3993 owned by respondents 1 and 2 (the appellants i





















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