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

2016 Supreme(Ker) 1373

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
Mithun Subramanian – Appellant
Versus
Nidhish Eldo Joseph – Respondent


JUDGMENT

C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. The main question posed for consideration, which would decide the very maintainability of these appeals, is whether the appellants fall, within the expression `person aggrieved' employed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short `M.V.Act') in view of the circumstances hereafter to be narrated. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act provides for an appeal to the High Court by `a person aggrieved' by an award passed by a Claims Tribunal. Consideration of the aforesaid question has become inevitable since the appeals are filed by the appellants/ claimants seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation against awards whereby and whereunder compensation in excess of their claim was granted. O.P.(M.V)Nos.853 of 2012 and 2326 of 2012 from which the above appeals arise, germane from one singular motor vehicle accident and they were jointly enquired into and a common award dated 30.5.2016 was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. Hence, the appeals are jointly considered.

2. Shorn off
























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