United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt Raj Rani & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Jan 2012
- Bench
- JASWANT SINGH
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 166
Judgment
27.1.2012 United India Insurance Company Ltd Smt Raj Rani and others .....Appellant Vs. .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate for respondent No.2. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) The United India Insurance Company has filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 26.2.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants for grant of compensation on account of death of Mahender Singh in a motor vehicle accident due to negligent driving of the car Wagon-R bearing registration No.DL-9CP-1404 (for short “the offending vehicle”) by its driver-respondent No.5 Rambir Singh, the appellant-Insurance Company has been fastened with the liability on account of being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Sh. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the respondents-claimants and submits that an appeal bearing FAO No.3062 of 2009 was filed by the claimants against the same award dated
26.2.2009 seeking enhancement of compensation and this Court vide order FAO.No.4016 of 2009 (O&M) #2# dated 12.11.2009 upon notice to the appellant-Insurance Company through its counsel Sh. Ravinder Arora, Advocate has disposed of the appeal on the offer made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company for an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- (under all heads) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards settlement of the entire dispute between the parties. It is, thus, submitted that the present appeal would not be maintainable. A photo copy of the decision dated 12.11.2009 passed by this Court in FAO No.3062 of 2009 has been produced in Court today, which is taken on record as Mark-A. Faced with this factual position, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the present appeal be disposed of as having become infructuous. Dismissed as having become infructuous. January 27, 2012 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 166.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 27 Jan 2012. The bench was JASWANT SINGH.
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.