New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Devender Yadav & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Aug 2006
- Bench
- UMA NATH SINGH, MAHESH GROVER
Outcome
Allowed
application is allowed and 38 days' delay in refiling the appeal is, hereby,
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover. Present: Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant UMA NATH SINGH, J. (Oral) Heard on CM No.16878-CII of 2006 (application for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal). On due consideration, the application is allowed and 38 days' delay in refiling the appeal is, hereby, condoned. Hence, CM No.16878-CII of 2006 is disposed of. FAO No.3945 of 2006 This FAO arises out of an award dated 6.3.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, in MACT Case No. 37 of 4.8.2004, awarding a sum of Rs.43,530/- in an injury case of a young man of 23 years, said to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel raised a technical plea that since there was no disablement certificate on record, the Court could not have resorted to the Schedule given under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act'). We have carefully perused the award. The seat of injury appears to be kidney and simply because the disablement certificate was not placed on record, it cannot be said that the injured had not suffered serious injury. Besides, the compensation amount of Rs.37,730/- relates to the medical expenses. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed at the threshold. ( UMA NATH SINGH ) JUDGE August 28 , 2006 ( MAHESH GROVER ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application is allowed and 38 days' delay in refiling the appeal is, hereby,
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 28 Aug 2006. The bench was UMA NATH SINGH, MAHESH GROVER.
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.