Madhya Pradesh Court June 2004 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.
Gheesi Bai and ors. Vs. Manohar Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC669
ORDER1. Claimants have come up in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award, dated 23.4.1999, passed in Claim Case No. 38 of 1996, by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh, whereby their claim petition has been dismissed. Facts in brief are these.2. On 26.8.1997 Balu aged 40 years, while travelling in MP-04-L-0789 (Tractor/Trolley) died. It so happened that he fell down from the Trolley while it was moving and one of its bigger wheel crushed him. It is alleged that Trolley was carrying bricks and Balu was travelling along with the goods as labourer. The Trolley was owned by non-applicant No. 2 and driven by non-applicant No. 1 at the relevant time. It was insured with the non-applicant No. 3.3. The claim was contested only by Insurance Company inter alia alleging that driver had no licence, that the Trolley was being used for different purpose than the one disclosed, that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver,...
Bhavesh Vs. Nirmal Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC215
ORDERP.C. Agarwal, J.1. Appellant is a juvenile of 16 years of age who had filed this Accident claim through his father as his next friend on 30.12.2001. The appellant as a pillion rider was travelling on motor cycle No. MP/30/JE/1308 driven by Atul Raina (A.W. 2). Car No MP/09/HS/2756 driven by Nirmal Kumar (R-1) and owned by Amar Dandwani (R-2) dashed the motor cycle injuring both Atul Raina (A.W. 2) and the appellant. Driver and owner of the car did not contest the Accident claim. Tribunal held car driver guilty of negligence. It held liability of car owner and Insurance Company also proved, On all these points there has been no controversy between the parties.2. In this appeal by the claimant the only dispute has been regarding quantum of compensation awarded. The Tribunal below has allowed Rs. 32,360/- as price of medicines, etc., Rs. 5,000/- for mental and physical pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disability due to restriction in knee and ankle joint, in all Rs. ...
Someshwar Vs. Shabir Sheikh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC529
ORDER1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant against an award, dated 8.7.1999, passed by learned Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kukshi in Claim Case No. 23 of 1997 whereby claimant's claim was decreed in part for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- by way of compensation for the damage caused to claimant's vehicle in Accident. According to claimant, it is on a lower side. He wants more and, hence, has come up in appeal for enhancement. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether any case for enhancement is made out?2. Heard Mr. H.S. Rajpal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.R Saraf, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.3. As observed supra, two questions arise in this matter. First, whether any case for enhancement in compensation is made out on facts? And secondly, whether Tribunal was justified in holding that both the vehicles i.e., the one belonging to appellant (claimant) and the other belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›