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

1992 Supreme(MP) 907

K.L.ISSRANI
Renuka Bai And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Jai Prakash Sethy And Ors. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

K.L. Issrani, J.

1. The present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the order dated 15.9.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the Motor Vehicles Case No. 36 of 1992, refusing to allow the application of the claimant applicant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for interim compensation.

2. In this case, the non-applicant No. 3, Rajendra Singh, who is the owner of the truck, has been ordered to pay interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the applicant. But the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the non-applicant No. 2, insurance company, is also liable to pay, which has been wrongly absolved by the lower court.

3. A show cause notice was issued, Mr. Gulab Sohane, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., appeals. None appeared for other non-applicants. It seems that the aggrieved party, i.e., the non-applicant No. 3, Rajendra Singh, has not filed any revision petition against the impugned order. In this revision, the non-applicant No. 3 is represented by Mr. R.G. Rai, Advocate, but he was absent when the case was heard finally.

4. Mr. Gulab Sohan



















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