Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
VALMIKI MENEZES
Mohandas Vinayak Naik S/o Vinayak Naik – Appellant
Versus
Dattaraj Tukaram Gaude S/o Tukaram Gaude – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties; the petition is finally heard and disposed of. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. G. Ramani waives service on behalf of the Petitioners, learned Advocate Mr. Amey Kakodkar waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 2, learned Advocate Mr. Vaman Kurtikar waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 4 and learned Advocate Mr. James Lopes waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 5
3. This Petition impugns order dated 10.08.2023, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Margao (MACT) in Claim Petition No.88/2022, whilst allowing an Application dated 09.03.2023, made by the Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) for dropping/deleting itself as Respondent No.2 in the Claims Petition. The Petitioners are the Original Claimants.
4. On 14.08.2022, a motor accident occurred at the Sugar Factory, Dharbandora, involving a Maruti Swift Car bearing No.GA-05-F-1348 driven by Respondent No.1 and a Tata Container bearing No. KA-S2-A-5699, driven by Respondent No.3. The Petitioners herein filed Claim Petition No.88/2022 in the (MACT), at Margao on 24.1
The Claims Tribunal must complete pleadings and conduct inquiries before deciding on the liabilities of parties in motor accident claims; premature deletions or piecemeal rulings are prohibited.
Amendment under Order VI Rule 17 refused when it changes claim's fundamental character from passengers in goods vehicle to workers crushed below road, withdraws admissions, lacks due diligence, and a....
Amendment under Order VI Rule 17 rejected in claim petition as it altered fundamental nature from passenger death in goods vehicle to crushing of labourer, lacked due diligence, contradicted FIR, and....
Amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC impermissible if changes basic structure of pleadings, withdraws admissions, lacks due diligence, and counters insurer defense post-reply in motor accident claim ....
Dismissal of application to set aside an ex-parte award in a motor accident claim cannot solely rely on delay when a prior concession was made by the opposing party, warranting examination of justice....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the owner under the Motor Vehicles Act, the powers of the Claims Tribunal, and the role of the Insurance Company in defending clai....
(1) Motor accident – After lodging FIR and on receipt of information by insurance company, it would be duty of company to appoint a Nodal Officer and furnish intimation to State police, who shall coo....
The delay in lodging an FIR does not invalidate a motor accident compensation claim if satisfactorily explained, and the tribunal must evaluate evidence based on the preponderance of probabilities ra....
The court emphasized the necessity of due diligence in identifying parties for impleadment, particularly when information is available during earlier proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
