Dismissed

Anil v. Ali Mohd. and Anr.

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2024CMA/950/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal, which sought enhanced compensation from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, was disposed of upon the record of a Lok Adalat compromise agreement, resulting in an enhancement of the compensation amount.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 11 days was condoned. The compensation amount was enhanced by Rs. 1,15,000/- as per a Lok Adalat compromise, and the Tribunal award was modified accordingly.

Anil Vs Ali Mohd. and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:2881]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 950/2018

¶4

Anil S/o Mohan Lal Meena, R/o Jhadol, Phalan Detada, Sarada, District - Udaipur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ali Mohd. S/o Allauddin Mev, R/o Ghaseda, Haryana. Driver

¶8

Satish Dhingra S/o Gopi Chand Dhingra, R/o Shiva Ji Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana. Owner

¶9

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Branch Office, Udaipur. Insurer

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Ms. Khushboo Palasiya
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Devendra Singh Chouhan

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

18/01/2024

¶15

Matter comes upon an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay of 11 days caused in filing the present appeal.

¶16

Although the notices of application have not been issued yet, as learned counsel Mr. Devendra Singh Chouhan puts in appearance for respondent No.3 Insurance Company, this Court is not inclined to issue notice on the same.

¶17

At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, service on respondent Nos.1 & 2, being the driver and owner is dispensed with at the risk of the appellant.

[2024:RJ-JD:2881]

[CMA-950/2018]

(2 of 3)

For the reasons stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the delay is condoned and the application is allowed .

¶22

Both the learned counsel for the parties submit that a compromise has been entered into between the parties in the spirit of Lok Adalat. They have placed on record a memorandum of understanding/compromise entered into between the parties, which is taken on record.

¶23

Learned counsel Mr. Devendra Singh Chouhan submits that he has been authorised by the Insurance Company to enter into the said compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat. 7. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as awarded by judgment dated 19.09.2017 passed in MAC Case No.497/2012 by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salumber, District Udaipur, whereby the claim of the appellant seeking compensation against the respondents was partly allowed holding defendant No.3 also liable to pay compensation of Rs.33,500/- with interest @9% per annum.

¶24

In view of the above and in spirit of lok adalat, the compensation amount as awarded by the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2017 is further enhanced by Rs.1,15,000/- in favour of the claimant-appellant as a full and final settlement of the case. The amount so agreed shall be deposited by respondent No.3Insurance Company with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today failing which, the same shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. The enhanced amount of compensation be disbursed/

¶25

(3 of 3) [CMA-950/2018]

¶26

[2024:RJ-JD:2881]

¶27

deposited in terms of the award in the saving bank account of the claimant-appellant. The impugned judgment/award dated 19.09.2017 passed in MAC Case No.497/2012 by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salumber, District Udaipur is modified accordingly.

¶28

In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of .

¶29

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶30

147-SPhophaliya/Devanshi/-

Anil v. Ali Mohd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil v. Ali Mohd. and Anr.

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

Ranjeet Singh Vs Tata Aig General Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Deepa Ram Vs Kishan

Ajay Jain Vs Abhishek Jain

Hajari Lal Vs Govind Prasad

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Bheriya

Anita Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.