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

1975 Supreme(All) 171

K.N.SETH, HARISWARUP
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Urmila Bahri – Respondent


Advocates:
G.K. Sahai, for Appellants; L.P. Naithani, Standing Counsel, for Respondents.

Judgement

HARI SWARUP, J. :- This appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge by which he allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by which the Tribunal had rejected the application of the respondents for an enhanced claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. One Devendra Bahri had suffered motor accident on January 9, 1970, and was injured. An application under Section 110-A was moved by him within limitation. Subsequently, he died on November 11, 1970. His heirs, who are respondents in this appeal, moved an application for substitution and amendment of the original application before the Tribunal claiming enhancement of the claim of compensation as the victim of the accident had died. They also urged that if amendments were not possible, the claim may be treated as a fresh claim. The Tribunal allowed the application for substitution but dismissed the other applications holding that the applications for fresh claim and the enhanced claim were barred by limitation and there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Against the order rejecting the applications a writ petition was filed it has b













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