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

2001 Supreme(Del) 232

B.A.KHAN, M.S.A.SIDDIQUI
OM WATI – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMND DIN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
O.P.GOYAL, S.M.SURI

KHAN

( 1 ) ALL these appeals arise out of one accident involving a limited question of the extent of the insurer s liability and whether claimants in LPAs (59, 60 and 61/1993) were liable to forego their 30% share of compensation because they had failed to plead driver and owner and insurer of the car involved in the accident. LPAs (59, 60 and 61/1993) are filed by claimants questioning forfeiture of their 30% share of compensation amount and the other set of appeals (nos. 90, 91 and 92/1993) are preferred by the Insurance Company pleading limited liability up to Rs. 50,000. 00.

( 2 ) ONE Sanjeev Kumar was driving his car no. HRH-24 with two others Shiv Singh and Sat Pal on 27/5/1979 when it was hit by a truck no. DLL-5052 coming from opposite direction. All the three sustained injuries and died in the process. Their LRs filed claim petitions which were resisted by the Insurance Company on the plea of its limited liability of Rs. 50. 000. 00. The company took the plea in its written statement but did not seek framing of any issue on this. Nor did it place on record any original copy, carbon copy or photocopy of the insurance policy alongwith or immediately thereafter. It also failed













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