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

1987 Supreme(Guj) 92

A.M.AHMADI, N.B.PATEL
HARIVADAN MANEKLAL MODY – Appellant
Versus
CHANDRASINH CHHATRASINH PARMAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: C.G.MEHTA, P.V.Nanavati

A. M. AHMADI, J.

( 1 ) THE short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the Claims Tribunal was right in holding that since the appellants had received an amount of Rs. 21 600 by way of compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 they were barred by virtue of sec. 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 from claiming compensation under the latter Act ? The brief facts leading to this appeal may be stated as under.

( 2 ) THE appellants who are the original petitioners are the parents of deceased Bharat Harivadan Modi who died in a vehicular accident which occurred on 8/10/1979 A jeep car GRG 97 belonging to Jagdish Electric Company driven by Rajendraprasad Pande ran into a stationary tanker GTB 6022 which was parked partly on the tar road without the tail light switched on. The jeep was proceeding on National Highway No. 8 from Ahmedabad to Bhalod with four passengers including the deceased when the collision in question occurred. In the accident Bharat and one another were seriously injured and they succumbed to the injuries. Bharat died on the next day at the S. S. G. Hospital Baroda.

( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the a








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