Back
P.S.RANA
Jai Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Devi – Respondent
P.S.Rana, J.
Decision: Present appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award dated 9.11.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I Sirmour District at Nahan in MAC Petition No. 61-MAC/2 of 2007 title Jai Parkash and another Vs. Santosh Devi and others.
Brief facts of the case:
2. Sh Jai Parkash minor aged 12 years son of Sh Devinder Dutt and Smt. Krishna Devi mother of deceased filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 pleaded therein that on dated 30.6.2003 at village Chabahan Tehsil Pachhad District Sirmour HP deceased namely Devinder Dutt aged 32 years was travelling in tractor No. HP-16-1099 as labourer in tractor and when tractor reached near village Chabahan Tehsil Pachhad District Sirmour HP accident took place and deceased namely Devinder Dutt died due to accident of vehicle. Monthly income of deceased Devinder Dutt pleaded as Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) per month. It is pleaded that FIR No. 127 of 2003 dated 30.6.2003 was registered under sections 279, 337,338 and 304A IPC. It is pleaded that post mortem of deceased was conducted. It is pleaded that deceased died on the way after accident and petitioners have s
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or "overruled in subsequent judgments" that suggest any of these cases have lost authoritative value or have been invalidated by later decisions. Therefore, based solely on the information provided, no case is identified as bad law.
Followed/Established Principles:
KULWANT SINGH VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - 2014 8 Supreme 446: This case establishes a principle regarding the driving license, which appears to be a well-settled legal point. There is no indication it has been questioned or overruled.
Sarla Verma VS Delhi Transport Corporation - 2009 3 Supreme 487: This case discusses the exclusion of future pay revisions in income calculation, likely a settled point of law with no indication of disapproval.
K. K. JAIN VS MASROOR ANWAR - 1989 0 Supreme(MP) 173: Clarifies the scope of compensation claims under two Acts, a procedural point that seems to be accepted and unchallenged.
Reshma Kumari VS Madan Mohan - 2013 2 Supreme 577: Affirms the procedure in Sarla Verma, indicating it follows or upholds this precedent.
Iswarbhai C. Patel VS Harihar Behera - 1999 3 Supreme 121: Details procedural aspects about suit decrees and adverse inferences, which appear to be standard principles with no indication of being overruled or criticized.
Distinguished or Clarified:
Vidhyadhar VS Mankikrao - 1999 3 Supreme 102: Provides detailed points on various legal issues, such as presumption from non-appearance, validity of sale deeds, and mortgage vs. sale. These appear to be explanatory notes rather than cases that have been overruled or criticized, and no treatment pattern suggests they have been questioned or disapproved.
Uncertain or No Clear Treatment:
All cases are presented without any explicit indication of subsequent judicial treatment. Without references to later judgments or treatment, these cases are assumed to be authoritative or settled principles unless otherwise indicated.
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate treatment that is uncertain or ambiguous. There are no references to subsequent appellate or higher court treatment that would suggest ambiguity or doubt about their validity or legal standing.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
