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

1998 Supreme(Kar) 632

A.M.FAROOQ
VIMALA S. – Appellant
Versus
CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.BHAT, P.B.Raju

A. M. FAROOQ, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-1995 in M V C No. 3086/92 on the file of the M A C T X Bangalore rejecting their petition filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ).

( 2 ) ). The appellants are the widow and children of the deceased G. Narasimha Murthy, who died on 3-6-1992 due to the injuries he suffered in a scooter accident. According to the appellants the deceased-Krishnamurthy was driving the scooter on 2-6-1992 at about 12-20 noon through M E S Road and at that time a monkey suddenly crossed the road and in order to avoid hitting the monkey, he applied sudden brake and losing control of the vehicle he fell down and sustained serious injuries resulting in his death on the next day at NIMHANS Bangalore. That the deceased drove the scooter on the instructions of its owner the I-respondent, who entrusted him with some work. That the scooter was insured with the II-Respondent-Insurance Company. The appellants claimed a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under the no-fault liability provision, Section 140 of the Act.

( 3 ) THE first respondent owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and

















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