REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MANGILAL Appellant

V/S

PARASRAM Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SCOTT V. LONDON AND ST. CATHERINE DOCKS [REFERRED TO]
CASTELLAIN V. PRESTON [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH CASH AND PARCEL CONVEYORS LTD. V. LAMSON STORE SERVICE CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
WELD BLUNDELL V. STEPHENS [REFERRED TO]
MATTHEY V. CURLING [REFERRED TO]
TINLINE V. WHITE CROSS INSURANCE ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
BARKWAY V. SOUTH WALES TRANSPORT CO. [REFERRED TO]
MOORE V. R.FOX AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
PAGE V. BICHARDS; TART V. G.W.CHITTY AND CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
LAURIE V. RAGLAN BUILDING CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
WATSON V. THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
B.I.G.INSURANCE CO. V. JANARDAN [REFERRED TO]
NESTERCZUK V. MORTIMORE [REFERRED TO]
NAROTTAM DASS V. GENERAL MANAGER,ORISSA ROAD TRANSPORT CO.LTD. [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. CAPTAIN ITBAR SINGH AND JAGJIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNANORE VS. M K MOHAMMAD KUNHI [REFERRED TO]
MANJULA DEVI BHUTT VS. MANJUSRI RAHA [REFERRED TO]
K GOPALAKRISHNAN MINOR VS. SANKARA NARAYANAN [REFERRED TO]
RAM PERTAP VS. GENERAL MANAGERPUNJAB ROADWAYSAMBALA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. V K KALIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the Act), from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, indore.

(2.) ON April 26, 1963, at about 4 p. m. , Rajendra Kumar, a boy of 7 years, was sitting on the pathway a few yards away from the highway, on the outskirts of village Jamli, where he lived with his father, Parasram (respondent No. 1 ). The boy was answering the call of nature. In the meantime, a passenger bus, M. P. E. 3564, belonging to Mangilal (appellant) and driven by Kale Khan (respondent No. 2) came on the wrong side of the road and ran over the boy causing severe injuries to him, which resulted in his instantaneous death.

(3.) PARASRAM lodged a claim for Rupees 20,000/-before the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Act against Mangilal, Kale Khan and the indian Merchantile Insurance Co. Ltd. , (respondent No. 3, hereinafter called the insurer) on the allegation that the bus was driven at a high speed and that the accident was due to negligence of the driver, Mangilal and Kale Khan resisted the claim in a joint written statement. The insurer, with whom the owner was insured against third party risks, also resisted the claim by a separate written statement.

Click here to view full judgment.

MANGILAL Vs. PARASRAM

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address