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

1998 Supreme(MP) 880

A.K.MATHUR, S.JHA
N. D. Singhal – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. And Ors. – Respondent


ORDER

A.K. Mathur, C.J.

1. This is a public interest litigation whereby the petitioner, who is an Advocate of this Court has brought this cause asserting serious problem facing claimants prosecuting their claim petitions before Tribunals. Therefore, he has prayed that respondents be directed that whenever an accident takes place and if any criminal case is registered against accused under Sections 304A and 279, Indian Penal Code he be charged for violation of Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also. It is also prayed that a direction be given to the subordinate Judicial Courts to the effect that at the time returning of the vehicle on suparatnama the Criminal Courts should ensure that insurance policy of the vehicle is also seized and it should be their duty to see whether the vehicle in question is insured or not and whether the insurance is current or not. It is also prayed that in the event the vehicle is found to be not insured, then the claimant should be paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of interim compensation by the owner of vehicle in the event of death and injured should be paid an interim compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- by the owner of the vehicle.

2. It is












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