Skip to content


Mehta Madan Lal Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles;Insurance
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 153 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1983SC1136; 1983CriLJ1653; 1983(1)SCALE28; (1983)2SCC262
AppellantMehta Madan Lal
RespondentNational Insurance Company Limited and ors.
Excerpt:
- sections 6,7 & 2(b) :[r.v. raveendran & markandey katju,jj] amenity - plots sold/leased by public auction held, neither sections 6 and 7 nor any other provision of the development act casts any obligation on the central government to provide amenities to plots sold/leased the part of the central government to provide amenities, because the word amenity is defined in the act is erroneous and baseless. the word amenity is used in the context of two specific matters. the first is that the transferee/occupier of a site should not use the site or leave it in a condition that it will prejudicially affect the amenities in any part of chandigarh (vide section 6). the second is that central government can levy fees/taxes in respect of any site/building, on the transferee/occupier for the..........apportioning the compensation of rs. 42,000/- awarded to respondent no. 2 between 1st respondent insurance company with whom the vehicle was insured and the appellant owner of the vehicle is erroneous because the liability for payment of compensation in case of a motor accident is the joint and several liability of the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle the liability of the insurance company being limited to rs. 50,000/- and this liability cannot be apportioned between the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle. we, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the high court only in so 1 far as it seeks to apportion the liability for payment of compensation of rs. 42,000/- between the appellant and the respondent and direct that the 1st respondent as also.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. It is obvious that the order made by the High Court apportioning the compensation of Rs. 42,000/- awarded to Respondent No. 2 between 1st Respondent Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured and the appellant owner of the vehicle is erroneous because the liability for payment of compensation in case of a motor accident is the joint and several liability of the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle the liability of the Insurance Company being limited to Rs. 50,000/- and this liability cannot be apportioned between the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court only in so 1 far as it seeks to apportion the liability for payment of compensation of Rs. 42,000/- between the appellant and the Respondent and direct that the 1st Respondent as also the appellants shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. The 1 appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //