A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Tata Sambasiva Rao – Appellant
Versus
M. Ravi Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.179 of 2008, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the decree and order dated 21.03.2012, whereby their claim was partly allowed by granting a compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.10,00,000/-, filed the present appeal.
2. Claim is arising out of the death of one Tata Srinivasa Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.11.2007. While the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle, the lorry bearing No.AP 7 W 4568 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) dashed against the motorcycle from behind in a rash and negligent manner, which has led to death of deceased on the spot.
3. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, claimant Nos.3 is unmarried sister and claimant No.4 is elder brother of the deceased.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company.
5. Claim was resisted on the ground of compliance of conditions of policy and excessive nature of compensation by the Insurance C
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and Others
Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others
Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors.
Ramla and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others
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.
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.