C.T.RAVIKUMAR, K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
Mithun Subramanian – Appellant
Versus
Nidhish Eldo Joseph – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.