MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Hemraj – Appellant
Versus
Ramdhan – Respondent
2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal agaisnt the non-claimants. In the claim petition it was pleaded that claimant Smt. Ram Kanya was standing near shop of Babu Khangar then a tractor No.RJ 26 R 3778 came with high speed and hit Ram Kanya in which she sustained various injuries on 30.10.2006. At the time of accident she was pregnant and a dead child was born on 3.11.06 due to injuries. It was pleaded that accident took place due to rash and negligence of non-claimant No.1.
4. The non-claimants l and 2 filed reply to the claim petition wherein it was pleaded that no accident took palce with their tractor and police had involved the tractor after three days. It was also pleaded that the child was not died due t
Prem Kumari & Ors. vs. Prahlad Dev & Ors. (2008 ACJ 776) 12
Bhuwan Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2009 ACJ 1426) 12
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora & Ors. (2008 ACJ 2855) 12
Sardari & Ors. vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. (2008 ACJ 1307) 12
Divisional Controller, B.T.S. Division
Bhawaribai vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2006 ACJ 2085) 27
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.