Judgment · High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Sep 2004
- Bench
- P V KAKADE
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 2, 95(2), 149
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Considering the decision of the Apex National Insurance Co. Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v/s Nicolleita Rohtagi & Ltd., Chandigarh v/s Nicolleita Rohtagi & Ltd., Chandigarh v/s Nicolleita Rohtagi & ors., reported in 2002 (6) Supreme…
Judgment
Shri Rajesh S. Datar for the appellants. Shri Mohan N. Dhamal for Resp. Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. DATED: 16TH SEPT., 2004 DATED: 16TH SEPT., 2004 DATED: 16TH SEPT., 2004 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard advocates for both sides.
The appellant who is the Insurance Company seeks to challenge the award dated
13.6.1996 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal, Raigad, Alibag, on the ground that evidence on record does not support the case to the effect that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner and there was no sufficient evidence on record to establish the rashness and negligence in the matter of driving of the vehicle. Undisputedly, there is no challenge by the Insurance Company on any of the ground specified under Sec.149/2 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939.
Considering the decision of the Apex National Insurance Co. Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v/s Nicolleita Rohtagi & Ltd., Chandigarh v/s Nicolleita Rohtagi & Ltd., Chandigarh v/s Nicolleita Rohtagi & ors., reported in 2002 (6) Supreme Court 362, ors., reported in 2002 (6) Supreme Court 362, ors., reported in 2002 (6) Supreme Court 362, challenges available to the Insurance Company are restricted to those which are enumerated under the above quoted provisions of law. Hence, the present appeal is not maintainable at the instance of the Insurance Company. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be summarily rejected and is accordingly rejected. C. c. expedited. .....
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 2, 95(2), 149.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 16 Sep 2004. The bench was P V KAKADE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.