Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-01-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ2553
N.K. Mody, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 29.3.2004 passed by Eleventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 298 of 2001. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,87,500 with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to the claimant, i.e., appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and, if so, to what extent?2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident had occurred, who was negligent in driving th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-20-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj865
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the negligence on the part of the Doctors, who carried out the sterilization operation-onl4.2.2001 at a camp organized and supervised by the Surgeon of Family Welfare Center, Divisional Hospital, Gangapurcity, the respondent No. 2. The Doctors informed Smt. Uganti, petitioner No.2 that the operation was successful. But after the operation, Smt. Uganti became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 31.8.2002. Since the petitioner are poor, they did not want the fourth pregnancy. It was for the purpose of preventing the pregnancy, that Smt. Uganti had undergone the Sterlisation operation on 14.2.2001.2. It is further claimed by the petitioner that due to the negligence of the Doctors, she has suffered not only physical hardship, but also mental agony. She is also saddled with the responsibility of the fourth child. Therefore, she claims a compensation of Rs. 13,65,000/-from the respondents.3. Mr. Chetan Bairwa, the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-11-2008
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT129
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The above four petitions give rise to a common question about the jurisdiction of Civil Court and are being disposed of jointly by this common order. The learned ADJ where the petitioners filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act observed in his order dated 16.10.2006 that in view of the provision of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint. The petitioners aggrieved by the order have preferred these Civil Revisions under Section 115 CPC.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are that the petitioners are member of Defendant Society (respondent No. 3 herein). This Society purchased 44 acres of land in Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli from various landholders viz. respondents No. 4-7. The society developed this land into a housing and cultural center. Residential plots were demarcated, boundary walls were erected, roads, sewerages, culverts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-20-2008
Reported in : 2008(38)PTC69(Del)
ORDER11.08.2006After some arguments learned Counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to approach the learned single judge. Permission is granted. The application stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.Records of the learned single judge shall be returned forthwith. The same shall be made available as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing. Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JHima Kohli, J.August, 11, 2006.12. The defendant thereafter moved the present application, IA No. 13850/2006. The Division Bench made the following order, on 31-1-2008, (on an application of the plaintiff, for modification of its previous order, permitting the defendant to approach this Court):31.01.2008Present : Mr. Abhay Nath, Proxy Counsel for the appellantMr. Shailen Bhatia with Ms. Amita Kapur for the Respondent.FAO (OS) No. 232/1999.Counsel appearing for the parties state that the application, which is filed by the respondent seeking for a directi...
Tag this Judgment!