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

1984 Supreme(MP) 254

P.D.MULYE, R.K.VIJAYWARGIYA
Geetabai – Appellant
Versus
Hussainkhan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.S.Samvatsar, SUJAN JAIN,

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) THIS appeal by the claimants under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award dated December 20, 1977, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratlam, in Claim Case No. 7 of 1975.

( 2. ) THE material facts are as follows :

Claimant No. 1, Geetabai, is the widow of the deceased, Khimaji. Claimants No. 2 to 9 are the minor children of the deceased, Khimaji. Khimaji was a resident of village, Istagarkheda, Tehsil Alot District Ratlam. On June 8, 1975, Khimaji had gone to Ratlam to meet his relations. On that day, at 7. 45 p. m. when he was going on the road in front of the Government College, he was dashed against by a tempo bearing No. M. P. O. 3929 which was being driven by respondent No. 1, Husainkhan. Khimaji sustained serious injuries in the accident. He was admitted to the hospital. He succumbed to the injuries caused to him on June 13, 1975, in the hospital. Respondent No. 2, Mohammad Shan, was the registered owner of the said tempo on the date of the accident and it was insured with respondent No. 3, National Insurance Company Ltd. , in the name of Mohammad Shan. The claimants filed an application under Section 110a of the















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