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

2005 Supreme(Ori) 628

A.S.NAIDU
New India Assurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jyotsna Patra and five – Respondent


Advocates:
For Appellant:Kumar Parija
For Respondents:Sanjeev Udgata, Pabitra Kumar Nayak

ORDER

16.9.2005 — This matter was listed for orders to remove the defect as pointed by the Stamp Reporter. The accident took place in the year 1998. The Judgment was passed in the year 2003. The present appeal has been filed in the month of March, 2003, till date defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter is not removed and as the same is pending for the last two years and the Insurance Company is saddled with interest, this Court with consent of the learned counsel for the parties feels that it would be just and proper to dispose of the same at this stage.

2. Heard.

3. Assailing the Judgment dated 25.01.2003 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Rourkela in M.A.C.T. Misc. No.172/77 of 1998/2001, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal.

4. The grounds on which the impugned Judgment is chal¬lenged are that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence. The second ground is that the interest awarded is towards the higher side and the third ground is that the compensation awarded is excessive. So far as the third ground is concerned it appears that no permission was sought for under Section 170 of the Motor Vehic



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