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

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 176

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.N. KHARE, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, S.B. SINHA

Case summary

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

Judgment text

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAM KALI AND ORS. JANUARY 5, 2004 (V. N. KHARE, CJ. , D. M. DHARMADHIKARI AND S. B. SINHA, JJ. ] 'f ' Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Motor accident-Claim for compensation- Compensation awarded by Tribunal despite holding that terms and conditions of insurance policy violated at the time of accident-High Court confirming the award despite holding that driving licence ofdriver ofvehicle 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. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9065 of 2. 003. From the Judgment and Order dated 20. I2. 2002 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in F. A. O. No. 5942 of 2002. Pannanand Gaur for the Petitioner. .

, The Judgment of the Court was delivered This Special Leave Petition is directed against a judgment and order 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, however, arrived at the finding of fact that the first respondent herein has violated the terms and conditions ofthe 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. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v.

RAM KALI 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 l36 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No costs. K. K. T. Petition dismissed. >