Chhattisgarh Court June 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. Roshanlal and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC656; 2007ACJ57
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 1.2.1994 of the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 52 of 1990.2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant was working as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department in the State of Chhattisgarh. In the year 1990 he was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer of Bango Division of the Irrigation Department. On 7.6.1990 while he was going to Bilaspur by his official jeep having registration No. MPZ 7699 in connection with some official work, he met with an accident with bus having registration No. MP 26-0301 which was coming from the opposite direction. The said bus was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3. In the accident the left eye of appellant was completely damaged and appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 7,80,000. The claim was contested by insurance company, respondent No. 3 and Tribunal awarded a tot...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Duwas Ram Yadav and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-13-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC231; 2007ACJ763
V.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Heard on admission.2. Eighth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, vide award dated 27.1.2005 in Claim Case No. 84 of 2004, awarded compensation of Rs. 8,000 in favour of claimant Ram Prasad against the applicant National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, and the said award has been challenged by the applicant in this revision.3. The applicant contended that vide impugned award, Claims Tribunal allowed compensation less than Rs. 10,000 and appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is barred, therefore, they have preferred this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the award. The relative part of Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as below:115. Revision. - (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears-xxx xxx xxx.Subordination of courts has been d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›