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

2006 Supreme(MP) 824

A.K.GOHIL, S.SAMVATSAR
ANURADHA KAUSHIK – Appellant
Versus
VARUN GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ARUN SHARMA, M.M.Kaushik, R.P.Gupta, S.S.Bansal

Judgement Key Points

It is not necessarily mandatory for the owner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to avail the remedy of appeal in a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal if the insurance company has already paid the awarded amount to the claimant. The requirement of depositing a specific amount for filing an appeal typically depends on the provisions of the relevant statutory rules and the nature of the appeal.

In general, the deposit is often mandated as a condition for maintaining the appeal, especially when the appeal is filed by the owner or other interested parties. However, if the insurance company has already paid the awarded amount to the claimant, and the appeal is filed by the owner challenging the award or seeking enhancement, the specific deposit amount and requirements may vary based on the rules governing the tribunal and the circumstances of the case.

It is important to verify the applicable statutory provisions and tribunal rules, as they specify whether such a deposit is mandatory in the particular context. If the rules do not explicitly require a deposit when the insurance company has already paid the award, the owner may not be obliged to deposit Rs. 25,000/- to pursue the appeal.

Consulting with a legal professional or reviewing the relevant tribunal rules will provide clarity on the specific requirements in this situation.


ABHAY GOHIL, J.

( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of both the appeals; misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 and Misc. Appeal No. 609 of 2003. Claimants have filed Misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 for enhancement of compensation under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Insurance company has also filed Misc. Appeal No. 609 of 2003 disputing its liability and the legal representatives of the owner of respondent Varun Ground Water development Corporation and the driver have also filed cross-objections disputing their liability.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the deceased Bharat Bhushan Kaushik was an advocate practising at Gwalior. The claimants of Misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 are the widow, daughters and son of deceased bharat Bhushan Kaushik. On 7. 12. 1998 in the night at about 9 o'clock deceased was going towards Morena from Gwalior in his maruti van bearing No. MP 07-437 near jaderua village, which is 8 km. away from noorabad; one tanker No. MKH 9255 was parked in the mid of the road. The owner of the tanker was changing the tyre but no red signal was there indicating about the parking of the vehicle. The other vehicles were also passing from the road with haloge











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