REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Basu Mati Debbarma Appellant

V/S

Anita Debbarma Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
ISMAY,IMRIE & CO. V. WILLIAMSON [REFERRED TO]
CLOVER,CLAYTON & CO. LTD. V. HUGHES [REFERRED TO]
TRIM JOINT DISTRICT SCHOOL V. KELLY [REFERRED TO]
NISBET V. RAYNE & BURN [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL VS. VATSCHALA UTTAM MORE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR CHANDA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED GRIDCO VS. SUKAMANI DAS [REFERRED TO]
MURALIDHAR SARANGI VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RITA DEVI VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHNUMA BEGUM VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH DEVI VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. KASHENI [REFERRED TO]
PRIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. DONGKHOLM [REFERRED TO]
BIPAL BASHI VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. ARCHANA RAJAN [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. PHULO DEVI [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI RANI BISWAS VS. NANI GOPAL BANIK [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are tagged together as the common question of law that threads through all these appeals, namely, (1) M.A.C. App. No. 26 of 2001,(2)M.A.C. App. No. 52 of 2001, (3) M.A.C. App. No. 26 of 2002, (4) M.A.C. App. No. 92 of 2002, (5) M.A.C. App. No. 70 of 2003, (6) M.A.C. App. No. 76 of 2003, (7) M.A.C. App. No. 78 of 2003, (8) M.A.C. App. No. 81 of 2003, (9) M.A.C. App. No. 87 of 2003, (10) M.A.C. App. No. 89 of 2003 and (11) M.A.C. App. No. 84 of 2003 is whether the death or bodily injury as received from the indiscriminate firing by the outlawed armed outfits while borne in the motor vehicle would be included within the category of accident victims from the use of the motor vehicle as provided under sections 163-A/165 of the ''Motor Vehicles Act for compensation in terms of section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) By the impugned judgments and orders the claims of the appellants were rejected by the Tribunal holding that the bodily injury or death that occurred had not arisen out of an accident from the use of the motor vehicle as prescribed in sections 163-A/165 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) It would be further essential to take brief note of the factual backdrop of those appeals to underline the distinguishable fact, if any.

Click here to view full judgment.

BASU MATI DEBBARMA Vs. ANITA DEBBARMA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address