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

2000 Supreme(All) 278

B.K.ROY, LAKSHMI BIHARI
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.C.SRIVASTAVA, S.K.SRIVASTAV

ROY AND BIHARI, JJ.

( 1 ) THE solitary point urged by Mr. S. C. Srivastava holding brief for Mr. S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the question of admission of this appeal is that even though the claimants were not dependants of the deceased, thus the judgment awarding compensation plus interest at the rate of 10 per cent in their favour has been illegally passed and thus the appeal be admitted.

( 2 ) WHEN we asked a question to Mr. Srivastava as to what is the basis of making his submission, he referred to section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus:"where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. "

( 3 ) THE legislature has not used the word dependant rather it has used the words all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The words legal representative have not been defined under the motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, we are required to understand the aforementioned expression with reference to its ordinary dictionary meaning.

( 4 ) FIRSTLY, from the material as produced by the appellant it appears that the deceased was the brother of the claimants wh




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