Full Text
Translation output
M.AC.A.557/2016 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAC.APP. 557/2016
MATHEW A PATTIYANI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Francis, Mrs. Manju A Pittiyani & Mr. Prasanth Kulambil, Advocates
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAC.APP. 557/2016
MATHEW A PATTIYANI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Francis, Mrs. Manju A Pittiyani & Mr. Prasanth Kulambil, Advocates
VERSUS
NAND KISHORE & ORS. (TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.) ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORAL
ORAL
MAC.APP. 557/2016 & C.M.No. 26460/2016 (for stay)
Impugned Award of 12th April, 2016 determines the compensation to which appellant is entitled to but holds that the negligence was of petitioner as he had hit the left side of the Innova car. There is a damaging admission in the cross-examination of appellant, which is as under:-
“It is correct that it was my motorcycle which hit the offending vehicle.”
Taking note of this afore-noted damaging admission, appellant’s claim petition has been dismissed. In the appeal filed, this damaging admission has not been explained.
2016:DHC:5242
Impugned Award of 12th April, 2016 determines the compensation to which appellant is entitled to but holds that the negligence was of petitioner as he had hit the left side of the Innova car. There is a damaging admission in the cross-examination of appellant, which is as under:-
“It is correct that it was my motorcycle which hit the offending vehicle.”
Taking note of this afore-noted damaging admission, appellant’s claim petition has been dismissed. In the appeal filed, this damaging admission has not been explained.
2016:DHC:5242
M.AC.A.557/2016 Page 2
Learned counsel for appellant submits that FIR case is still pending and due to lapse on his part, the afore-noted admission of appellant has not been explained in the appeal and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file fresh appeal within a period of four weeks.
This appeal and application are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY26, 2016 r 2016:DHC:5242
Learned counsel for appellant submits that FIR case is still pending and due to lapse on his part, the afore-noted admission of appellant has not been explained in the appeal and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file fresh appeal within a period of four weeks.
This appeal and application are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY26, 2016 r 2016:DHC:5242
JUDGMENT