Allowed

Santram v. Ghyaneshwar Prasad And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Sept 2015MAC/1292/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before a National Lok Adalat. The High Court settled the dispute by accepting an amicable compromise where the insurer pays an additional sum to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Needed by respondent No. 03 shall pay appellant a sum of Rs. 20,000 as additional amount within 60 days with 6% interest if not realized.

Santram Vs Ghyaneshwar Prasad And Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

"^ /

S.B.

Arisine from district JANJGIR-CHAMPA

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

¶6

AT - BILASPUR

¶7

M.A.(C)NO. 1^95/2014 APPELLANT .-—Santram,aged 42, son of late Shri Dayaram Patel, resident ofvillage Parsada, ^..;^ Tl^ P.S./tehsil Baloda, district Janjgir-Champa ^' (C.G.). y^ •^•"^' (Applicant/claimant) VERSUS ..-r^ .^ESPONDENTS: (1) Ghyaneshwar Prasad, aged 42 years, son of Shri Laxmi Prasad Diwan, resident of Saylar, P.S./tehsil Sipat, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Driver) (2) Kamalkant Shukla, aged 25 years, son ofK. P. Shukla, resident ofBudhapara chowk, Police colony block-C, Raipur, tehsil and district Raipur (C.G.) (Owner) (3) United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Manager, Branch Office Jivan Bima Marg, Pandri Raipur, district Raipur (C.G.). (Insurer) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT, 1988.

¶8

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT. BILASPUR NATroNAL LQK ADALAT

¶9

Judge - Lok Adalat: Hon'bleMr. Justicc Inder Singh Uboweja Member - Lok Adalat: Shri Vinay Harit^ Advocate

¶10

Case No. MAC/1292/2014

¶11

APPELLANT Santram

¶12

Versus

¶13

RESPONDENT : Ghyaneshwar Prasad and othcrs

¶14

Appellant with Shri Ritesh Verma Advocate.

¶15

Respondent No. 03 with Shri Pankaj Agrawal Advocate.

¶16

AWARD

¶17

(Passed on 12th September, 2015)

¶18

The contesting parties to this appcal havc amicably settled/compromised ^jlispute, which is subject mattcr of this appcal, voluntarily. We have also founid that the terms and conditions of compromise/settlement arrived at between the contesting partics arc just/proper and legal and hence are acceptable. We accordingiy acccpt the compromisc/settlemcnt, proposed by the parties and order that respondent N6. 03 shall pay to the appellant a sum ofRs. 20,000/- fRs. Twenfrv thousand onlv) as additional amount to thc amount already awarded by way of compcnsation, within 60 days from today, otherwise, interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, shall also be payable till its realization.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Sd/SinghUboweia Member LokAdalatHighCoun Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶21

(Vinay Harit)

¶22

Member^- Lok Adalat High Court ofChhattisgarh Bilaspur

Santram v. Ghyaneshwar Prasad And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santram v. Ghyaneshwar Prasad 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

Dilip Kumar Vs the State of M.P.

Gopal Prasad Vs the State of M.P. Now C.G.

Chitraj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Managing Director Vs Industrial Court and Ors.

C.G. Infrastructure Development Corp. Vs Nand Kishore Sharma

Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs M.P.State Road Tran.Cor.and Ors.