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

2005 Supreme(Chh) 342

DHIRENDRA MISHRA
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
POORANLAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ABHISHEK SINHA, H.B.AGRAWAL

( 1 ) THE appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act of 1988') as he is aggrieved by the award dated 5-11-1999 passed by the IIIrd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case no. 16/95 whereby compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 towards damages caused to his vehicle in the motor vehicle accident was awarded.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No. 1 is the owner of matador 407 bearing registration No. M. P. 24-C/1592 which was insured with the appellant. On 18-11-1994 when the insurance policy of the said vehicle was in force, the vehicle was involved in an accident and was severely damaged. An offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal code was registered against respondent No. 2. The claimant/respondent No. 1 preferred an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming compensation for a sum of rs. 61,428/- for damages caused to his vehicle. The appellant denied the claim of the claimant and raised preliminary objection in his reply, that the application was not maintainable at the inst


















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