G.S.AHLUWALIA
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dilip Kumar Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Shri S. N. Gajendragadkar, Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Meena Singhal, Counsel for the respondent No. 1.
Shri T. C. Narwariya, Counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
This miscellaneous appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 4-12-2009 passed by 13th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 44/2009 by which an amount of Rs. 1,53,700/- has been awarded against the appellant as well as the respondents No. 2 and 3 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and it has been directed that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited in the FDR of any Nationalized Bank and the remaining amount be paid to the claimant by account payee cheque. It has also been directed that if any interim amount has been paid, then the same shall be adjusted in the final compensation amount and the appellant has also been held liable to make payment of compensation amount.
2. Challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the appel
Dhanwanti and others vs. Kulwant Singh
Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and anr.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Soneram and ors.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamli
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sudhakaran K. V.
Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Dwarika Prasad Agarwal and ors.
Panna Lal vs. State of Bombay and ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.