Dismissed

National Insu. v. Asha Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Dec 2010CMPMO/45/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction applied by the MACT regarding the deceased's status as a driver. The court observed that substantial justice was already served as compensation was calculated under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Consequently, the court exercised its powers under Article 227 and rejected the petition as futile.

What did the court decide?

The petition is rejected. No order as to costs.

National Insu. Vs Asha Devi — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No. 45 of 2004

¶3

Date of decision: 02.12.2010.

¶4

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

…Petitioner.

Versus

Asha Devi and others

…Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶12

For the petitioner: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent No.3: Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate.

¶13

Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)

¶14

The main point raised in this appeal is that since the deceased Man Mohan Singh was a driver no petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act could be filed and only a petition under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act should have been filed.

¶15

In my view it is not necessary to decide this question in this case since the learned MACT while assessing the compensation has applied the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and has calculated the compensation strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It

¶16

1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.

¶17

¶18

is not disputed that the deceased was a driver. There is no other statutory defence proved by the Insurance Company. It stands proved on the record that the deceased had a valid driving license and he was an employee. His salary has been assessed at only Rs.2,000/- per month, which is reasonable.

¶19

True it is, that a point of jurisdiction has been raised but in my view I need not exercise my extra ordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this case since substantial justice has been done to the parties and the claimants have only been awarded compensation assessed as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This litigation is virtually an exercise in futility. Therefore, the petition is

¶20

rejected. No order as to costs.

¶21

2^nd December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge

National Insu. v. Asha Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insu. v. Asha Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Lal Vs Rajinder Prashad

Gulzari Lal Vs Chetu

Krishna Devi Vs State

Partap Singh Vs State

Sohan Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner, Shimla.

Hp.State Cooperative Bank Vs State