Narayan vs. Narayan Singh

Â$ SLP(C)No. 6165 OF 2001 ITEM No.203 Court No.11 SECTION IVA A/N MATTER S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.6165/2001 (From the judgement and order dated 03/11/2000 in MA 317/95 of The HIGH COURT OF M.P AT INDORE) NARAYAN Petitioner (s) VERSUS NARAYAN SINGH & ORS. Respondent (s) ( For Final Disposal ) With SLP(C)No.14047/2001 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 29/11/2002 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. VARIAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. AGRAWAL For Petitioner (s) Mr. A.K. Chitale, Sr. Adv. Mr. Niraj Sharma, Adv. Mr. M. Mannan, Adv. Mr. Krishnanand Pandey, Adv. Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, dv. For Respondent (s) Mrs. J.S. Wad, Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Ms. Niharika Bahl, Adv. for M/s. J.S. Wad & Co.,Adv. Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Goodwill Indeevar,Adv. Mr. A.K. Chitale, Sr. Adv. Mr.Niraj Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R ..........L.......I.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.....J. .SP2 Heard learned counsel for the parties for about fifteen minutes. ..2/-

SLP(C) No.6165 of 2001@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Leave granted. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order. SLP(C) No.14047 of 2001@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Delay condoned. It is settled law that the Insurance Company, in the absence of leave, cannot file an appeal on merits. As such, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. (K.K. Chawla) (Jasbir Singh) Court Master Court Master [Common signed order is placed on the file] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2002@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.6165 OF 2001) NARAYAN APPELLANT VERSUS NARAYAN SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENTS O R D E R@@ CCCCCCCCC SLP(C) No.6165 of 2001@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Leave granted.

.SP1

.PA .PL56

.SP2

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It appears to us that the age of the claimant being between 15 and 20 years, the correct multiplier should be 16 as per the Second Schedule to The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. We, therefore, hold that the figure arrived at by the Tribunal is to be multiplied by 16 and not 15 as held by the Tribunal and High Court. We see no reason to interfere regarding the quantum awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

..2/-

.PA

Delay condoned.

lt is settled law that the Insurance Company, in the absence of leave, cannot file an appeal on merits. As such, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

.....................J. (S.N. Variava)

.....................J. (B.N. Agrawal)

New Delhi, November 29, 2002.