✦ Rajasthan High Court · 16 Aug 2010

BENCH, JAIPUR v. Parmanand & Ors.

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 998 of 2010DALIP SINGH

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dalip Singh Shri Om Prakash Gupta, Counsel for appellant-company *** Heard learned counsel for appellant-company. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation which is excessive. The appeal is thus against the quantum of compensation awarded. Present one is an appeal filed by the insurance-company. Admittedly the application submitted by the appellant-company before the learned Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not allowed and they were not given the right to defend the claim in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,as such the only defence available to the insurance-company appellant was under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the appellant insurance-company cannot challenge the award of quantum. The miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily. The stay application also stands dismissed. Ashok/ (Dalip Singh),J.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 149, 170.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Rajasthan High Court, on 16 Aug 2010. The bench was DALIP 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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Rajasthan High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 998 of 2010). ← Search more judgments