Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Laxmi Vs. Daulat Ram and ors.

Laxmi vs Daulat Ram and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Himachal Pradesh Decided May 16, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919085

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
FAO No.: 164 of 2011
Subject
Motor Vehicle

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Motor Vehicle

Key legal issue
Motor Vehicle
Acts & sections
The Motor Vehicles Act - Section 163A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Laxmi

Advocate Mr. Abhinay Sharma, Adv.

Respondent

Daulat Ram and ors.

Legal References

Acts
The Motor Vehicles Act - Section 163A

Excerpt

1. this appeal is directed against the award of the learned motor accident claims tribunal, bilaspur dated 12.1.2011 whereby he dismissed the petition filed under section 163-a as being not maintainable. 2. in fact the petitioners had earlier approached this court by filing fao no. 467 of 2002 and that case was disposed of in the following terms on 3.3.2009:- “mr. tara singh chauhan submits that as per the law laid down by the apex court in deepal girishbhai soni and others vs. united india insurance co. ltd. baroda (2004) 5 scc 385, the present petition filed under section 163- a of motor vehciles act was not maintainable since the income of the deceased was more than rs.40,000/- per month. therefore, he seeks to withdraw the original petition filed under section 163-a of motor vehicles act with liberty reserved to him to file an appropriate proceeding under the motor vehicles act or any other provision of law. in case such proceedings are commenced within two months from today, the respondents shall not raise any objection of limitation. the petition is disposed of accordingly.” 3. despite clear cut statement having been made and despite the orders of this court it appears that the petition was not withdrawn and was argued and it appears that it was not even brought to the notice of the learned motor accident claims tribunal that this was the order passed by the court. 4. in view of the earlier order passed the petition under section 163-a of the motor vehicles act was not maintainable. the learned tribunal rightly rejected the petition. in view of the above discussion there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur dated 12.1.2011 whereby he dismissed the petition filed under Section 163-A as being not maintainable.

2. In fact the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing FAO No. 467 of 2002 and that case was disposed of in the following terms on 3.3.2009:-

“Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan submits that as per the law laid down by the apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385, the present petition filed under Section 163- A of Motor Vehciles Act was not maintainable since the income of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- per month. Therefore, he seeks to withdraw the original petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act with liberty reserved to him to file an appropriate proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act or any other provision of law. In case such proceedings are commenced within two months from today, the respondents shall not raise any objection of limitation. The petition is disposed of accordingly.”

3. Despite clear cut statement having been made and despite the orders of this Court it appears that the petition was not withdrawn and was argued and it appears that it was not even brought to the notice of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that this was the order passed by the Court.

4. In view of the earlier order passed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. The learned Tribunal rightly rejected the petition. In view of the above discussion there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial