Allowed

Subedar Patel and Others v. Suresh Kumar Sen and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2007MA/484/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against an award in motor accident claims was filed by the deceased's family against the owner, driver, and insurance company. The High Court allowed the appeal, sanctioning a compromise award where the insurance company agreed to pay an additional Rs.35,000 along with other reliefs and legal fees.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to include additional payment of Rs.35,000 by insurer; appeal against owner and driver dismissed.

Subedar Patel and Others Vs Suresh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

¶1

i'^A ^ IN THE HIQH T OF JODICATORE AT BIIASPUR CHHA,TTlS& H

¶2

,1. Sbri Subedar Patel • s/o Late Moban Patel Aged abaut 71 years, 2-. Smt. Radle Bai Patel w/o Subedar Patel, Aged abou-t 62 years, 3. Ku. Sonkuawar d/o / ---3'hri Subedar Page aged' about 17 years, A. Smt. Dineshwari Bai Xd/o Late Ashok Patel, Aged about 28 years, 5. Ku. Mangara d/o Late Asbok Pate a^d ^'•K about19 years, ^^{0S^ ^. 6. Ku. Sikeshwari d/o ^•^^ly,^''.....-"1 l^ Late Ashok Pate, Aged at»ut 6 years. /• ,..-,y-t 7. Suryakant Pa-te son of tate Ashok Patel, A^ed ata3ut 2^2 years. Appellant No.5,6,7 are minors Tfarough nataral guardiaa Mo-ther Smt. Dinesbwari Bai Aupellant No.4. All residents e£ Dabrapara Bhilai -5, District Durg C.G. »»»• Appeliants.

¶3

Versus

¶4

1; Suresh Kumar Sen sen of Ganesh Ram R/0 Village Majarkata P.S. Gariya Band, District Raipur. <^ 2. Mohd. RijwanMeman s/e •Shri Aaar Msman , Meman Garage, Main Road, Gariyaband. '3. Uailied India Insi.irance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office Krishna Complex, Kutchari Chowk, Raipiir (C.G.)» . RESTOI'iDSNTS MMORANDU'i OF APPEAL UNBER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VSHICLE ACT 1988.

¶5

t ...• ' Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 5,35,000/- arising out of a^?ard passed in M.A.C.T. Gage No.09/2001 in

¶6

HiGH1 B^^ S B _tf!n^.rf-lt,COURT§ j^m^:^fi OF^l »" CHHATTISGARH:il^ii ? BS B A m?OB5B^fl^ ^n^ A i?^ B ? .. J?ap^BiLASPUR36 A^-t^ ^-J'ItS il F^

¶7

APPEAL No. 484 OF 2002

¶8

AppSll3HtS

¶9

*Shri Subedar & Others

¶10

Vs r su

¶11

'nts:

¶12

Surssh Kuinar Ssn & Others.

¶13

(Arisincj out of Clalm Case Nc^9^2001|

¶14

illant No.1 - Subedar Patel, Appe!!ant No.2 - Smt. Radha Bai Paie', Appel'ant No.4 Smt Dineshwari Bai & AppeHant No.5 - Ku. Mongra ippear !n person.

¶15

Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel for ail the appeilants.

¶16

None for respondents No.1 and 2,

¶17

Shri Rejji Jocob Oommen, Divisiona! Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited with Shri Pankaj Agrawa!, counsel t'or respondent No.3.

¶18

Appellant No.4 ~ Smt. Dineshwari Bai fiisd an appiication along with affidavit for permission to compromise ths mattsr on behair of minors ~ Ku. Mongra, Ku. Tikeshwari & Suryakant Patel, AppeilaniS NO.&, 'o and i', respectiveiy.

¶19

Not oppose'd.

¶20

Considered. A!!owed.

¶21

Shri Sahu, iearned counsel for the appeliants deciared that Sonkunwar (Appsllant No.3) is major and has authorised him to compromise the case. therefore, he has compromised the case on her behalfaiso.

¶22

tn terms of compromise, award is passed as beiow:-

¶23

1. In addition to compensation a'readv awarded ha Trihrnai NUuf !; respondent No.3 shai! pay Rs.35,000/(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) to the appeliants.

¶24

2} For dlsbursement and deposit in FDR, thc Tribunai may pass appropnate orders.

¶25

1. The amount, if any, kept in deposit with Bank shail be payable under the orders of Tr'founal in accordancs with iaw.

¶26

1. Appeilants sha!' be entitied to receive interest on the amount so deposlted, ifany.

¶27

1. In view o'f the above, appeat against respondents No.1 & 2 siands ctismissed. ,

¶28

¶29

1. Out of the above amount, Rs.350/- (Rupees Three Hundred Fifty Only) shall be paid to counsei for the appellants directiy by respondent No.3 towards counset fee.

¶30

1. If the ambunt awarded is not dfeposited within a period of one month, the Insurance Company shali be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereafter.

¶31

1. Cc'uiLfifJhe award shall be given to the parties free of cost.

¶32

Sd/Sd/Member-LokAdalat Justi? H.<A _^K.Shrivastava High Court of Chhattisgarh .Bf Judge -iJokAdaia^ Bilaspur High Court ofChhattisgarh yowri Bilaspur

¶33

•iiilljti

Subedar Patel and Others v. Suresh Kumar Sen and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subedar Patel and Others v. Suresh Kumar Sen and Others

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

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Manmati Vs Sub-Divisional Officer and Ors.

Raipur Development Authority and Ors. Vs Abdul Majid and Another

The Comm. of C.T., Indore Vs M/S Raj Pipe

Gyan Prasad Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.and Ors.

Sudha Devi Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhananaja Kumar Sahu and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.