Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA/1161/1992 2/ 2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1161 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus MER ATHIYA KARSAN & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================= Appearance : MS LILU K BHAYA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR AJ SHASTRI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 3 - 4. ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 14/12/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT
appeal was filed challenging the judgement and award dated 29.02.1992
passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 146 of 1989 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Special), Porbandar, whereby the said
application was partly allowed.
facts in brief are that Mer Gogan had to go at village Beran. He had
boarded in Truck bearing No. GRT 5777 with his goods. Mr Mer Bhima
Mulu, Orig. Opponent No. 1, was driving the said vehicle with full
speed. There was an accident in which Mer Gogan sustained serious
injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, MACP
No. 146 of 1989 was filed before the Tribunal for compensation in the
sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, which came to be partly allowed. Hence, this
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The accident had occurred on 1st March, 1989.
The claim petition is covered under the old Act. In that view of the
matter the Insurance Company is not liable under Section 95(2)(a) of
the Act. Learned Advocate for the respondent is not in a position to
controvert this position.
the premises aforesaid the impugned award is quashed and set aside
qua the Insurance Company. It will be open to the claimants to
recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. If the amount is
lying in the FDR, the same will be withdrawn by the Insurance Company
and, in case the amount is already withdrawn, the appellant may
recover the same from the owner. The appeal is allowed to the