Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
New vs Mer on 20 December, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   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

1. This
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.

2. The
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
appeal.

3. Heard
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.

4. In
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
aforesaid extent.

[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]

JYOTI

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.116 seconds.