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

2007 Supreme(MP) 81

DIPAK MISRA, S.S.JHA
NARAYAN LILLAHARE – Appellant
Versus
DINESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ankit Pandey, RAKESH JAIN,

Judgment

( 1. ) THE obtaining factual matrix that has been innovatively exposited in the claim Petition No. 13/2006 which has spiralled to the passing of an award dated 11-10-2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balaghat (in short the tribunal) frescoes a picture which creates some sense of maze, may be due to deliberate ingenious attempt by the claimant or may be due to Everesting ambition that has an innocuous perception. Be that as it may, we proceed to adumbrate the facts.

( 2. ) THE claimant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the claimant)initiated an action under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act) forming the subject-matter of Claim Case No. 103/2003 on the ground that he had met with an accident on 28-4-2003 as a result of which he had sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal, as pleaded, determined the permanent disablement at 40% and awarded a sum of Rs. 89,000/- vide award dated 27-1. 1-2004. ( 3. ) THE claimant for the reasons best known to him, accepted the award in silence and chose not to prefer an appeal. The award was satisfied by the insurer on whom the liability was fastened. As the time rolled by, the claimant, as setforth























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