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

2002 Supreme(Jhk) 131

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, H.S.PRASAD
SANTOSH KUMAR SULTANIA – Appellant
Versus
RATANLAL SURAJMAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.C.Jha, M.K.DEY, S.N.Lal

Judgment :

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) ADMITTEDLY monoharlal Sultania of Mohalla Tambaku patti of Chaibasa town left behind three sons, Santosh Kumar Sultania, Balram prasad Sultania and Krishna Kumar Sultania.

( 2 ) ON 15. 7. 1986, Krishna Kumar Sul-tania who was aged about 21 1/2 years and was unmarried, while coming from Ranchi to Chaibasa on a jeep No. BRS 6471 died, when a bus No. BHN 9915 coming from opposite direction in a very high speed dashed the jeep.

( 3 ) PARENTS of the deceased were not alive. His two brothers filed claim application under section 110-A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, for compensation.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal by impugned judgment and award dated 29. 1. 1997 held that the claimants were not dependent on earnings of the deceased and, therefore, they were not entitled to receive any compensation under the head loss of dependency. It was further held that claimants were entitled to compensation only under the head loss to the estate and allowed Rs. 15,000, which they had already received earlier by way of interim compensation.

( 5 ) IT is well settled that brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under sectio






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