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

2003 Supreme(Ker) 171

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
V. K. Kesavan Nambeesan – Appellant
Versus
K. K. Madhavan – Respondent


Judgment :-

This appeal is by the owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident. The owner is made liable for the entire amount of Rs.38,150/-, less Rs.15,000/- which was found to be the limited liability of insurer.

2. It is contended that in terms of Section 147 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there cannot have any limitation of liability, so far as the insurer is concerned, in respect of payment of compensation to an injured passenger. Of course, this contention sounds good to be considered in an appeal under Section 173 of the Act.

3. It is contended by the respondent that this appeal itself is not maintainable as the appellant has not complied with the required condition as mentioned in the proviso to Section 173(1). The proviso reads as follows:

Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court".

Therefore, in order to maintain an appeal, the appellant, who is required to pay compensation, has to make a deposit Rs.25,000/- or


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