IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ghousiya Begum – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the Insurance Company arising out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.15 of 2018 dated 24.08.2021.
2. Respondent No.1 herein - petitioner No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein – petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the sons and respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein – petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the married daughters of late Mohammed Allauddin.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death of the deceased – Mohammad Allauddin, who died on 08.11.2017 in a road traffic accident, against the driver – respondent No.7 herein – respondent No.1, owner - respondent No.8 herein – respondent No.2, Insurance Company – appellant herein - respondent No.3 and the Managing Director TSRTC – respondent No.9 herein - respondent No.4.
4. On 07.11.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., Mohammad Allauddin was going towards new bus stand by walk, the bus bearing No.
Sebastiani Lakra and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another
Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another
MAGMA General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram 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.