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

1992 Supreme(Ker) 316

JAGANNADHA RAO, PARIPOORNAN, USHA
Neeli – Appellant
Versus
Padmanabha Pillai – Respondent


Judgment :-

Jagannadha Rao, C J.

This Reference is made to a Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29-8-1988 for consideration of the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vilasini v. K.S.R.T.C.,1988(1) KLT 915, and other cases following it or taking the same view. The said Division Bench in Vilasini's case had taken the view that S.92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is retrospective in application and was applicable to cases of accidents occurring prior to 1-10-1982, the date on which S.92-A came into force. The Division Bench, which has referred this matter to the Full Bench, has referred to the conflict of decisions in the various High Courts and thought that, prima facie, Vilasini's case requires reconsideration.

2. Before we go into the main question, we shall briefly advert to the facts and findings in the referring order. One Damodaran died in a motor accident on 9-4-1977 and the claim was filed as M.V.(O.P.) No.22 of 1979 on 30-8-1979 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, by his wife, three sons and daughters seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Two other children of Damodaran were impleaded 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