Dismissed

Smt.Lata Banjare/Beyard and Ors. v. Omprakash Sahu and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Apr 2010MAC/661/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against an award of the Loksundarbhar LOK-ADALAT under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was disposed of upon recording a compromise petition filed by the parties, with the court agreeing to the terms set as just.

What did the court decide?

The compromise petition was recorded, an award was passed in terms thereof, and the appeal was dismissed.

Smt.Lata Banjare/Beyard and Ors. Vs Omprakash Sahu and Ors. — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

:K'^l ''•''"wl ^^!"^^S^?S^

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT O^ CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.)

¶3

M.A. fCI N0. //-h /2009 msmn ygni

¶4

APPELLANTS :1. Smt. Lata Banjare/Beyard, Wd/o. Late Dr. Mahesh Ram Banjare, aged about 35 years 2. Khuleshwar Prasad, S/o. Late Dr. Mahesh Ram Banjare, aged about 18 years ^•^•^^"' '^: ...'k^ 3. Sonkeshwar, S/o. Late Dr. Mahesh Ram Banjare, aged about 15 years 4. Ku. Chunisha, D/o. Late Dr. Mahesh Ram Banjare, aged about 10 years No.3 and 4 minors, through natural guardian mother Smt. Lata Banjare, W/o. Late Dr. Mahesh Ram Banjare, aged about 38 years All R/o. Village Rojhandih, Tahsil and P.S. Pamgarh, District JanjgirChampa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. Omprakash Sahu, S/o. Sohan Lal ^- Sahu, R/o. Village-Masturi (Jondhra Road), Tahsil and P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver of Marshal Jeep No.C.G.10/1067) 2. Pramod Kumar Naik, S/o. Shri Madan Lal Naik, R/o. Central India Motors, Jarhabhata, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through: . Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶5

%33i^s^^s^^^^•'.-'^-^•^-'=-'^' l-^^^'?^.^'^ • :y';-^'

¶6

CLAIM BEFORE THETRIBUNAL

Rs.20,50,000/

AWARD AMOUNT

Rs.03,97,000/

VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL:

¶11

Rs.16,53,000/-

¶12

MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988

¶13

LOK-ADALAT

¶14

ChhattisgarhHigh Gourt Campus, Bilaspur

¶15

CaseNo...W£..^L..............

¶16

Appellant/s

¶17

• ^^.:....^c^.....f^^fja^-...CL^^ O^A^i^

¶18

Versus

¶19

Respondent/s ^...J^^.^^...r'.f^t^..^.,.o'~^t-'

¶20

A^llantwith/byShri ....^cl:^^...&

¶21

Respondent with / by Shri ^.^.47!05!^^.....^'..^"....'w.;^..^n".. Advocate "- ^5^a (S)

¶22

AWARD

¶23

(Passed^{on........o.s..^^2.&.^............)}

¶24

Parties file a compromise petition. The terms are just. We hereby record the compromise and pass an award in terms of Compromise, and order that appellant/respondent no.........i?.3........................... shall pay to respondent / appellant a sum of Rs. ...^o.'.O.OP/^:...,........,..... \r\ words (..&.~...^y^..^^^.'*^..<^^...../.....................) ' bywayof com i^!-^^ _'2- fv\ef^1^ •togbthorwith intoroot @ ............................%-pef-aRfwm4fQm

¶25

to ............................ in addition'to the amount already paid / awarded by the ctaims '^ tribunal. /^/'^ ^^ J^^l- Q Cy.PA 5i^sj ^- ^<cov^-A/< et^^-ff^--^. J'o^w&J ^^L 6^^ g'e^ Sd/' . .Sd/R.£,.Jhanwar i vL-^ •liR ^-Ai-) Judge i w

Smt.Lata Banjare/Beyard and Ors. v. Omprakash Sahu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lata Banjare/Beyard and Ors. v. Omprakash Sahu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanshyam Das Vs Dr.L.P.Rathore

The State of M.P. Vs Pole @ Jasvindar Singh Sikkha and Ors.

The State of M.P. Vs Mohd. Rasool Qureshi

Jagdish Suna Vs K.Appal Raju and Others

Tikaram Sahu Vs Rajpal Jain and Another

Smt.Tijori Bai @ Kamala Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh