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

2016 Supreme(All) 1246

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI
ANIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
KEWLA DEVI – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
R.P. Verma for the Appellant; Vikas Verma for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, questions the validity of the judgement passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MACP No. 58/2002 allowing a compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- against the appellant.

3. On the very opening of the arguments by learned counsel for the appellant, the question that crops up is as to who are the necessary parties in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are instituted in relation to an accident where the ownership of offending vehicle is traceable to some person upon whom the liability arising ouf of an accident is fixed after adjudication. As per the provisions of Section 168 of the Act the liability can be fixed against the owner of the offending vehicle, insurance company or the driver. In a situation where the ownership of offending vehicle is untraceable, the claim is instituted under Section 161 of Motor Vehicles Act which is classified as a ‘’hit and run’ case. The forum for adjudication of a claim under Section 166 is the Motor Accidents Claim Tribuna































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