Dismissed

Mah'Tra State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt Tulasabai Babasaheb Sargar and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2009FA/795/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an award granting compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 based on no-fault liability. The High Court held that no interference was warranted as prima facie findings existed. The main claim remains open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award confirmed; main claim petition contentions remain open; pending deposit to be transferred to Tribunal.

Mah'Tra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mst

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.795 OF 1997

¶5

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Appellant versus Smt.Tulasabai Babasaheb Sargar and others Respondents

¶6

Mr.G.S.Hegde for appellant. Mr.Jaiwant S. Chandnani for respondent no.6.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

¶8

DATE : 09th December 2009

¶9

JUDGEMENT :-

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The challenge in this appeal is to an award made on a claim petition under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petition was allowed by granting compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest on account of no fault liability.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that involvement of the bus owned by the appellant in the accident was not proved. It is, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal could not have made the award.

¶12

I have considered the submissions. The compensation awarded is on the ground of no fault liability. On the basis of documents which are required to be produced by the claimants, a prima facie finding was recorded regarding involvement of the bus in the accident of the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned award.

¶13

¶14

The main claim petition which is of the year 1983 must have been disposed of by this time. However, if it is still pending, notwithstanding the confirmation of the impugned award, the contentions of the appellant including the contention regarding involvement of the bus of the appellant will remain expressly open. The main claim petition will have to be decided without being influenced by the impugned award and confirmation thereof by this Court. Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

If any amount is deposited by the appellant is pending in this Court, the same shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal. The concerned Tribunal will pass appropriate orders regarding withdrawal/disbursement of the said amount.

¶16

(A.S.OKA, J.)

Mah'Tra State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt Tulasabai Babasaheb Sargar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mah'Tra State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt Tulasabai Babasaheb Sargar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Chandraprakash Kisan Waghmare. Vs M/S Airman Transport and Anr.

Mushtaq S.Kathawala and Anr. Vs JENNIFER5 Biren Panchal andANR.

Bayer (Indaia) Ltd. Vs Devi Pesticides Pvt.Ltd.

Rakesh R.Mehta Vs Vijay P.Kachalia

Suryakant Narayan Velankar Vs Balasaheb Namdeo Jagtap and Others

Mah'Tra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt Tulasabai Babasaheb Sargar and Ors.