NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAM KALI AND ORS.

vidhipandit.com/case/sc-2004-1-176-177

Judgment · Supreme Court of India · decided (year only) · Bench: V. N. KHARE, CJ., D.M. DHARMADHIKARI and S.B. SINHA

[2004] 1 S.C.R. 176

Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)

Catchwords

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Motor accident-Claim for compensation- ' Compensation awarded by Tribunal despite holding that terms and conditions c of insurance policy violated at the time of accident-High Court confirming the award despite holding that driving licence of driver of vehicle was fake- Special leave petition before Supreme Court-

Held

Order of courts below need no interference as in awarding compensation they had exercised discretion in favour of the claimant-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9065 of 2.003.

Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details

A

JANUARY 5, 2004

B 'f

From the Judgment and Order dated 20. I 2.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 5942 of 2002. E Pannanand Gaur for the Petitioner.

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered .,

This Special Leave Petition is directed against a judgment and order F dated 20th December, 2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner -... herein questioning an award dated 6-9-2002 made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad was dismissed. The High Court has dismissed the • aforementioned appeal inter a/ia on the ground that the driving licence of the offending vehicle had been found to be fake. The learned Tribunal, G however, arrived at the finding of fact that the first respondent herein has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by plying the Maruti Van on hire/i-eward at the time of accident-. Y'

The said question, it appears from the impugned judgment of the High Court, was not adverted to before it. H 176

p. 177

In view of the fact that both the Tribunal and the High Court had A exercised their discretion in favour of the claimant. We do not intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article l 36 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

K.K.T. Petition dismissed.

Report an error in this judgment →

Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0