REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NEETA TREHAN Appellant

V/S

GOPAL KRISHAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY present appeal, the appellants have assailed an order dated 23.9.1991 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on two counts. The first that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was not just and fair, it was inadequate and the other that the Tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company was limited only to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and balance was to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that on 26.10.1982, Yogesh Trehan (appellant No. 2 herein) and his father Yashpal Trehan were going on two-wheeler scooter No. DLU 1675 being driven by Yogesh Trehan and they were hit by a truck bearing No. DHG 6383 with the result that father and son both fell from the scooter. While son who was driving the scooter fell on one side, the father fell on the other side and the father was run over by the truck. It was alleged that truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. His father died on the spot.

(3.) DURING appeal it has been strenuously argued by counsel for insurance company that the liability of insurance company was limited only to Rs. 1,50,000. Reliance was placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashikalabai, 2006 ACJ 194 (Bombay); Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Veena Pruthi, 1989 ACJ 1163 (Delhi); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CM. Jaya, 2002 ACJ 271 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maya Rani Roy, 2003 ACJ 1028 (Calcutta); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raj Kumari, 2008 ACJ 295 (SC); Veena Pruthi v. Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd., 2011 ACJ 378 (Delhi); and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur, 2004 ACJ 648 (SC).

Click here to view full judgment.

NEETA TREHAN Vs. GOPAL KRISHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address