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

1996 Supreme(MP) 338

S.K.DUBEY, T.S.DOABIA
Baby – Appellant
Versus
Sana Khan – Respondent


Advocates:
Smt. Meena Singhal for appellants;
Vinaykant Sharma and B.K. Dubey for respondents.

ORDER

T.S. Doabia, J. -- 1. The claimants, in this appeal, preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. They seek enhancement. The amount determined by the Tribunal is said to have been paid to the appellants-claimants. No cross appeal or cross objections have been filed. The respondent New India Insurance Company has thus agreed to abide by the award. Even though no cross-objections have been preferred to this appeal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has argued that this was a case where in fact no compensation could be awarded at all and he submitted that the question of enhancement would not arise. According to him, claimants are heirs of the driver of the ill fated Tempo. This tempo suffered an accident on account of it being not kept in proper running condition. The question raised is that the claimants could not claim any compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 though they could have sought their remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It is this issue which is also being examined in this appeal. Before doing so, facts in brief




























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