Dismissed

Manager Ms Aravali Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajesh Gupta and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Jul 2018CMA/1862/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Rajasthan High Court Tribunal's order allowing an interim claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in a motor accident death case. The Court held no ground for interference existed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order allowing the interim claim under Section 140.

Manager Ms Aravali Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

(1 of 2)

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1862/2018

¶4

Manager, M/s Aravali Automobiles Private Ltd., Near Over Bridge, Keshav Nagar Alwar Rajasthan Wrongly Written As Purchaser Motor Cycle No. Rj 02 5M 0906.

¶5

----Appellant/Non-Claimant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajesh Gupta S/o Tulsidas Gupta, B/c Vaishaya, R/o Plot No. 383 Shanti Kunj, Alwar Rajasthan.

¶8

Smt. Seema Gupta W/o Rajesh Gupta B/c Vaishaya, R/o Plot No. 383 Shanti Kunj, Alwar Rajasthan.

¶9

----Claimants/Respondents

¶10

Pankaj Malik, S/o Harishchandra Malik, R/o Hindupada Anandpur Ashram, Opposite Baroda Haveli, Alwar Driver And Owner Of Motor Cycle No. RJ 02 5M 0906.

¶11

Dilip Kumar S/o Banwari Lal Sharma, R/o 2/138 Kala Kua Thana Aravali Vihar, Alwar, Registered Owner Of Motor Cycle No. RJ 02 5M 0906.

¶12

M/s Naveen Car Bazaar, Near Private Bus Stand, Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur, Purchaser Motor Cycle No. RJ 02 5M 0906.

¶13

----Non-Claimants/Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava

¶15

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶16

Judgment

¶17

04/07/2018

¶18

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the orders dated 15.06.2011 and 7.2.2018, whereby, application moved by the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), was allowed.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CMA-1862/2018]

¶22

Claimants have filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of their son Chirag in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 11.03.2009. Along with claim petition, an application was filed for grant of interim relief under Section 140 of the Act. So far as, the appellant is concerned, he has been impleaded as a respondent in the claim petition as purchaser of the motor-cycle in question. There is no material placed on record along with this appeal to come to the conclusion that the appellant has nothing to do with the motor-cycle in question.

¶23

Vide the impugned order, application moved by the claimants under Section 140 of the Act, has been allowed. Appellant is yet to lead its evidence in support of its pleas before the Tribunal. Appellant would be at liberty to establish before the Tribunal that it has no concern with the offending vehicle.

¶24

Hence, no ground for interference is made out in this appeal. Dismissed.

¶25

(SABINA),J

¶26

Mohita/2

Manager Ms Aravali Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajesh Gupta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager Ms Aravali Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajesh Gupta 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

Lelamma K. Josep Vs Mumtaz

Nanhe Khan and Anr. Vs Anil Kumar and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Usha and Ors.

Smt Amina Bi and Ors. Vs Prabandhak National Insurance Co. Ltd. Andor

Satpat Singh Vs Satyanarayan

Surendra Singh and Ors. Vs Badri Lal Choudhary and Ors.