DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Sangeeta Namdev – Appellant
Versus
Indrapath @ Munna Yadav – Respondent
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/claimants on the question of maintainability of instant Civil Revision which has been filed on 20.01.2023 seeking enhancement of Rs.95,000/- in the final award dtd. 27.1.2017 passed by MACT, Lakhnadaun, Distt. Seoni in claim case no. 41/2014, whereby an award of Rs. 34,15,616/- has been passed.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he wanted to file Misc. Appeal but in the light of objections being raised by the Registry of this Court in the light of decision/order dtd. 07.03.2022 passed by coordinate Bench at Indore in Misc. Appeal no. 814/2022 (Uzer Khan Vs. Faruq and others), the petitioners have preferred the instant civil revision and as per this decision, the amount in dispute being less than Rs.1,00,000/-, the civil revision is maintainable.
3. I have carefully gone through the order in the case of Uzer Khan (supra), which is based upon decision/order dtd. 21.11.2016 passed by coordinate Bench at Gwalior in M.A. 1096/2016 (Netram Vs. Rajendra Singh Yadav and others) and another decision of coordinate Bench of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case Pala Ram Vs. Punjab Roadways and another 2007 ACJ 983. I have als
Jabalpur Bus Operators Association vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak[(1988) 2 SCC 602]
BALWANT SAHEBLAL KHAWSE vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2001 (3) MPLJ 414
Ghanshyam vs. Additional District Judge
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD vs. MEGHNATH AND ANOTHER AIR 2001 MP 36
Pala Ram vs. Punjab Roadways & Another as 2007 ACJ 983
Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another vs. Harish Kumar Purohit and Others (2003) 5 SCC 480
Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service 2013 ACJ 2733
State of Tirpura vs. Tripura Bar Association and Ors. (1998(5) SCC 637)
VARGHESE DEVASSIA vs. JOSSY VARGHESE 2019 (1) KLT 769
WALI MOHAMMED AND ETC. vs. BATULBAI AND ETC. 2003 (2) MPLJ 513 (FB)
The disputed amount in the appeal, not the amount awarded, determines the maintainability under sec. 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not empower the Claims Tribunal to review its own awards, and the powers of a Civil Court conferred on the Tribunal do not extend to reviewing decisions.
The right to appeal is a vested right that cannot be retroactively altered by subsequent amendments unless explicitly stated.
Once it is found that the compensation to which the claimant is legally entitled, be it under any particular head or aggregate, is more than what is claimed, its denial would result in denial of 'jus....
The judgment reinforces the principle that in motor vehicle accident claims, the burden of proof lies on the claimants to establish negligence, and the adequacy of compensation is determined based on....
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.