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

1989 Supreme(MP) 511

P.C.PATHAK
Laliya Bai – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Rakesh Jain for appellant; T.C. Naik for respondent No.6; K.L. Issrani for respondents Nos. 1 to 5.

ORDER

P.C. Pathak, J. -- 1. This is an appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the claimant.

2. The appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.40,000/- against the respondents on the allegation that her husband deceased Galju died on 18.10.1981 while he was going on a cycle on account of a violent dash given by a truck No. MPJ-7314 driven by the respondent Hajari and owned by Mohanlal Rajput since deceased now represented by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in this appeal. The vehicle was insured in the name of Mohanlal with the Insurance Company (respondent No.6). It was, therefore, prayed that the compensation be awarded jointly and severally against the driver, owner and the Insurance Company. The owner and the driver filed a Joint written statement opposing the claim. They further submitted that on 12.1.1977, they had transferred the truck to Narendra Kumar Taneja and also handed over possession to him. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. While describing Mohanlal as late Mohanlal, they did not specifically deny Mohanlal's death around June, 1978. The Insurance Company filed written statement opposing the claim. By amendment, it








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