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

1988 Supreme(Del) 301

D.P.WADHWA
RAVI KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
RAM PARKASH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Bharti Patni, P.P.MALHOTRA, S.C.Rana

D. P. WADHWA, J.

( 1 ) THE principal question that arises for decision in this petition is if the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in the cases mentioned under S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act ) on the principle of no fault. A motor vehicle accident on 16-2-1986 resulted in the death of Smt. Karma Wali. The vehicle involved in the accident was a two-wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DEO 5103. It was insured against third party risk with the National Insurance Company Limited, who is respondent No. 8 before me.

( 2 ) THE legal heirs of deceased Karma Wali numbering six, being. her husband and children, filed an application under Ss. 92a and 110a of the Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. There we re four respondents. First respondent was Ravi Kumar Dhooper, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, the second respondent was Smt. Santosh Kumari, owner of the vehicle, the third respondent was the insurance company in question, and the fourth respondent was again an heir of the deceased Karma Wali.

( 3 ) BY the impugned order, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of. Rs. 15,000 as compensation under S. 92a










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