Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Having Its Corporate Office v. Authorized Representative
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The stay application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Baldev Singh S/o Shri Sukhmander Singh Jat Sikh, Resident of House No. 166, Langiyana Khurd, P.S. Baga-Purana, District Moga, Punjab (Owner). ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 24/08/2017 Mr.…
Judgment
Smt. Jaman Kanwar W/o Late Sohan Singh.
Mst. Chhotu Kanwar D/o Late Sohan Singh (Minor).
Mst. Leela Kanwar D/o Late Sohan Singh (Minor)., Minors Are Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jaman Kanwar.
Prayag Singh S/o Shri Parwat Singh.
Smt. Sayar Kanwar W/o Shri Prayag Singh., All by Caste Rajput, Residents of Near R.T.O. Office, Jodhpur.
Gagandeep S/o Shri Jaidev Pandit, Resident of Village Langiyana, P.S. Baga-Purana, District Moga, Punjab (Driver).
Operative part
Baldev Singh S/o Shri Sukhmander Singh Jat Sikh, Resident of House No. 166, Langiyana Khurd, P.S. Baga-Purana, District Moga, Punjab (Owner). ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 24/08/2017 Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent-claimant Nos. 1 to 5. Copy of memo of appeal has been supplied to him. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal though came to the conclusion that on account of the licence being fake, the Insurance Company was not liable, has (2 of 2) [CMA-2355/2017] ordered for payment of compensation with direction to pay & recover. Admit. Issue notice. Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-claimant Nos. 1 to 5. Requirement of service on respondent No.6 is dispensed with. Issue notice to respondent No. 7 only. Heard on stay application. During the pendency of the appeal, if the appellant Insurance Company deposits a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith interest as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of four weeks, after taking into consideration any amount deposited under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the rest of the award qua the appellant Insurance Company shall remain stayed. The amount when deposited be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award. The stay application stands disposed of. (ARUN BHANSALI)J. A.K. Chouhan/-74
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The stay application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 24 Aug 2017. The bench was ARUN BHANSALI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.