Janak Singh v. Pawan Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
In two motor accident compensation appeals, the court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of claims. The evidence showed the insured vehicle was stationary, and the plaintiff's driver hit it without negligence. The court noted owners cannot claim unless it is a personal accident case, and the driver was the owner's nephew, not a workman.
What the court decided
-1-
FAO No.845 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.845 of 2003 Date of Decision.24.07.2014
Janak Singh
......Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.846 of 2003 Ruma Rani ......Appellant Versus
Pawan Kumar and others ......Respondents
Present: Mr. Abhinandan Pandhi, Advocate for Mr. R.P.Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the insurance company.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's finding regarding the claim of negligence was correct given the Defence Dip. Report.
Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation when the victim was the driver/owner of the stationary vehicle.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Janak Singh
- appellant
Ruma Rani
- respondent
Pawan Kumar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Punjab & Haryana HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- FAO/845/2003
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court