Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2064 of 2010 · High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Aug 2010
- Bench
- DALIP SINGH
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 140, 173
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2064 of 2010 SHRIRAM General Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur V E R S U S Batto Devi wife of late Shri Dullichand and Others Date of Judgment :::: 20/08/2010 Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dalip Singh Shri Rishipal Agrawal, Counsel for appellant-company Per Court : *** Heard learned counsel for appellant-company. Perused the memo of miscellaneous appeal. This miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-company against the order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants towards compensation on account of no-fault-liability. The appellant insurance-company has contested that the driver of the vehicle did not possesses a valid driving license and as such has taken the defence available under Section 149 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper with a view to safeguard the interest of the appellant as well as of the claimants that the amount, which has been awarded would be released to the claimants on furnishing a solvent security to the satisfaction of the learned Tribunal. -2- CMA No.2064/2010 Needless to say that the order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is subject to the final decision at the time of passing the award by the learned Tribunal. The miscellaneous appeal as well as the stay application are, accordingly, disposed of. (Dalip Singh),J. Ashok/
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 140, 173.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 20 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.