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

2007 Supreme(MP) 776

MANJUSHA P.NAMJOSHI, A.M.SAPRE
RAISINGH – Appellant
Versus
ANIL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.P.Singh, J.Vaishnav, Y.Purohit,

Judgment

( 1. ) THE decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other 2 connected appeals being M. A. Nos. 2066 and 2082 of 2006 because all these 3 appeals arose out of common award passed by Claims Tribunal in relation to one accident.

( 2. ) THIS is an appeal filed by claimant under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short called the Act) against an award dated 29. 4. 2006 passed by the Thirteenth member, M. A. C. T. , Indore in Claim Case no. 119 of 2005.

By impugned award, the tribunal has dismissed all the three claim petitions including the one filed by claimant (i. e. , appellant herein) under section 163-A of the Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in accident. So the short question that arises for consideration in these 2 connected appeals is whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petitions filed by claimant under section 163-A of the Act and if not then whether the claimants-appellants are entitled to claim compensation for the injuries and death as per provisions of the motor Vehicles Act? ( 3. ) ON 15. 10. 2004, 3 persons namely, one Meharban Singh, Raisingh (appellant of M. A. No. 2065 of 2006) and Sanjay (a






























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