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

2003 Supreme(HP) 335

A.K.GOEL
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SARUP DEVI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Insurance Company in all FAOs except for respondent No. 4 in FAO 116 of 2002 for respondent No. 3 in FAO 17 of 2003. (2) Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate for respondents (For the appellants in FAO NO. 116 of 2002) (3) Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate for Respondent 1 and 2 in FAO 116 and 156 of (2002), for respondents No. 1 and 2 in FAO NO. 66 of 2003. Sh. N.D. Sharma, Advocate vice Counsel for proposed LRs. (4) M/S LMV, Advocates for Respondents 1 and 2 in FA0120 of 2002 (5) Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in FAO No. 283 of 2002, for respondent No. 1 to 2 in FAO No. 72 of 2003 (6) Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No. 17 of 2003, for respondent No. 2 in FAO No. 78 of 2003 (7) Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 6 in FAO No. 58 of 2003, for respondents No. 1 to 4 in FAO No. 59 of 2003, for respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 60 of 2003, for respondents No. 1 to 4 in FAO No. 63 of 2003, for respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 67 of 2003 for respondents No. 2 to 4 in FAO No. 68 of 2003, for respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 70 of 2003, for respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 71 of 2003, for respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 74 of 2003, for respondent No. 1 and 2 in FAO No.75 of 2003, for respondents No. 3 m FAO No. 77 of 2003, for respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 79 of 2003, for respondents No. 1 and 2 in FAO No. 81 of 2003, for respondents No. 1to 3 in FAO NO. 82 of 2003, for Respondents No. 1to 2 in FAO NO. 83 of 2003, for respondents for respondents No. 1 to 4 in FAO No.> 92 of 92 2003, for respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 94 of 2003 and for respondents No. 1 and 2 in FAO No. 95 of 2003.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Goel. J. :- Since all these appeals have arisen out of the same award which was passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sirmaour at Nahan, except FAO Nos. 116 and 156 of 2002, as such these have been taken up together for hearing at the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, who submitted that these be disposed of at the earliest keeping in view the interest of large number of claimants. While allowing this prayer of the learned counsel for the parties, these appeals were finally heard. FAO Nos. 116 & 156 of 2002 are against the same award passed by MACT (II), Solan. Learned counsel for the parties present in these two appeals stated that award is common, as such both may be heard alongwith other appeals. They also stated that accident in these two appeals is the same as in other cases.

2. Admitted facts in all these appeals are, that on the night intervening 7th and 8th August, 2000 bus No. HP-1575 was being driven by late Om Singh alias Bablu. Son of Rattan Singh. He was owner-cum-driver of this bus. It was carrying marriage party of Hardev Singh and was on its way from village Bhauri to Dingar kinnaur. At about 12 midnight when it




































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