Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

U.P.A.E.V.P. versus SMT. PUSHPA DEVI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


U.P.A.E.V.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Devi - FIRST APPEAL No. 281 of 1992 [2005] RD-AH 1262 (5 May 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

First Appeal No. 281 of 1992

Sajid Ali Khan Vs. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.

HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J

HON'BLE R.K. RASTOGI, J.

1. The appellant was driving scooter on 10.9.1986. The scooter met with an accident with Metadoor and the appellant was injured. He filed a claim petition. This has been partly allowed on 20.12.1991. Hence the present appeal.

2. We have heard counsel for the appellant and Sri VC Dixit for respondent no. 1. The appellant in order to prove his case has produced himself as PW-1 Ausak Ali Khan who was pillion rider on the scooter and Dr. JN Goel who treated him. The court below after considering the evidence on record has held that the accident took place due to negligence of Metadoor driver. There is neither any appeal nor any cross objection on behalf of the respondent. The finding recorded by the court below regarding negligence is upheld.

3. The court below has awarded Rs. 15000 for medical expenses, Rs. 5000/- for other expenses, Rs. 5000/- for damages to the scooter, Rs. 20,000/- disability,and Rs. 25,000- for  mental and physical injury. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that more money Rs. 15,000/- was spent for medical expenses. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below has committed an illegality in awarding only Rs. 20000/- for disability. It is correct that the doctor has stated that there is permanent disability but no such disability was mentioned in the certificate. The appellant continued to be work as accountant; his services were never terminated. . In view of this, it can not be said that the amount awarded by the tribunal below is unreasonable. The appeal has no merit and it is dismissed.

Date: 5.5.2005

SKS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.