Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

Citation
2017 INSC 1143
Decided
1 December 2017
Disposal
Heard

Holding

Paragraph II is to be read as directing that the amount lying in deposit in the trial Court be released to the claimant(s) on due identification.

Summary

The appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. had earlier ordered that 50% of the compensation deposited in the Registry be released to the claimants upon identification. In the judgment dated 24 November 2017, paragraph II contained that direction. Upon clarification sought by the respondents, the Court read the paragraph to mean that the amount lying in deposit in the trial Court, not the Registry, should be released to the claimants on due identification. The clarification was given to avoid ambiguity in the earlier order. No substantive change to the liability or quantum of compensation was made, and the appeal proceeds as per the original judgment with the clarified direction on release of funds.

Issues considered

  • Interpretation of paragraph II of the 24.11.2017 judgment regarding the locus of the deposited compensation to be released to claimants

Legislation cited

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActCompensationInsurance claimCivil appealClarificationIdentification of claimant

Judgment

                          (2017) l l S.C.R. 137



                 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.                                          A
                                    v.
                       SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 9694 of2013)
                         DECEMBEROl,2017                                                  B
              [RANJAN GOGOi AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.163A - Clarification given with
respect to decision dated 24.11.2017 reported in {2017] II S.C.R.
130.
                                                                                          c
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9694
 of2013.
       From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.10.2011 of the High Court
 of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 900/2011.
      Amit Kumar Singh, Mrs. E. Enatoli Serna (for Mis. Law                               D
 Associates), Ad vs. for the Appellant.
        Ajay Kumartalesara,Amit Singh Chauhan, Ms. Nidhi. Vipin Nair,
 P. B. Suresh, Abbay Pratap Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
        The following Order of the Court was delivered:                                   E
                               ORDER
       Paragraph. I I of the Judgment dated 24.11.2017 passed by this
 Court in Civil Appeal No. 9694 of2013 reads as follows:-
        "11. As the final disposal of the appeal may take some time,we F
        are of the view that 50% of the compensation that is presently .
        lying in deposit in the Registry in terms of the Order dated
        24.02.2012 should be released to the claimant on due
        identification."
        Upon a mention being made by the learned counsel for the
  respondent(s), the said paragraph will now be read to mean that the                     G
. amount lying in deposit in the trial Court be released to the claimant(s)
  on due identification.


 Nidhi Jain                        Clarification given with respect to ealier decision.   H
                                    137


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Motor Vehicles Act"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.