New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manjit Kaur and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 176 of 2004
CC 5520 / 2003
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 5766 of 2002)
CC 5520 / 2003
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 5766 of 2002)
Petitioner: New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent: Manjit Kaur and Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 176 of 2004
CC 5520 / 2003
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 5766 of 2002)
CC 5520 / 2003
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 5766 of 2002)
Judges: V.N. Khare, CJI & S.B. Sinha, J.
Date of Judgment: Jan 05, 2004
Appearances:
Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocate (NP) for the Petitioner.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION LAWS
Article 136 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 164, 167 – Interference – Award by Tribunal – Finding that the driver, who was also owner of the car, was not having driving licence – Same affirmed by High Court. Held that it is not a fit case for interference under Article 136. (Paras 1, 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. (JT 2004 (1) SC 109) (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
By V.N. Khare, CJI & S.B. Sinha, J.
1. The special leave petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 12.12.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder it affirmed the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar in case no. 119 of 8.12.2000. The question raised in the special leave petition is as to whether in view of the finding of the learned Tribunal that the driver of the Maruti car was not holding a driving licence and particularly when he happened to be the owner of the vehicle, the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment.
2. Keeping in view of the fact that both the Tribunal and the High Court had recorded that the petitioner would be entitled to realise the amount of compensation as assessed from the driver of the offending vehicle, we do not intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, particularly, having regard to our decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.1. We do not intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter.
3. The petition is dismissed.
1. The special leave petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 12.12.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder it affirmed the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar in case no. 119 of 8.12.2000. The question raised in the special leave petition is as to whether in view of the finding of the learned Tribunal that the driver of the Maruti car was not holding a driving licence and particularly when he happened to be the owner of the vehicle, the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment.
2. Keeping in view of the fact that both the Tribunal and the High Court had recorded that the petitioner would be entitled to realise the amount of compensation as assessed from the driver of the offending vehicle, we do not intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, particularly, having regard to our decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.1. We do not intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter.
3. The petition is dismissed.
