Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Accident – Compensation – Enhancement - Compensation towards mental and physical pains and sufferings granted by Tribunal appears to be on lower side because Appellant required to be treated in hospital for long durations of time from date of accident – Loss of future earnings, compensation shall stand enhanced - Appellant has not claimed and would not be entitled to any compensation under the heads future medical expenses and loss of expectation of life - Compensation for loss of prospects of marriage is also not applicable in case of appellant – Compensation under heads of loss of amenities and for mental and physical pains and sufferings shall be enhanced as aforesaid – Hence compensation enhanced. [Bhimrao Shamrao Shinde Versus Ramesh Sitaram Devkar & Another, The Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Pitale, Dt: 16-01-2018, Cdj 2018 Bhc 065]
Monday, February 12, 2018
DEMAND NOTICE* SENT TO THE DRAWYER WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. THEREAFTER SECOND NOTICE WAS ALSO SENT. COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON THE BASIS OF FIRST/ORIGINAL NOTICE. SECOND NOTICE WOULD BE OF NO RELEVANCE.
*⚖⚖⚖SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881.*⚖⚖⚖ *DEMAND NOTICE* SENT TO THE DRAWYER WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. THEREAFTER SECOND NOTICE WAS ALSO SENT. COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON THE BASIS OF FIRST/ORIGINAL NOTICE. SECOND NOTICE WOULD BE OF NO RELEVANCE. SECOND NOTICE MAY BE TREATED AS REMINDER OF THE DRAWER'S OBLIGATION TO DISCHARGE HIS LIABILITY. *2017 AIAR (CRIMINAL) 562. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.*
_POWER-OF-ATTORNEY IN CHEQUE DISHONOUR CASES (COMPLAINT U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,1881)
🌐 *_POWER-OF-ATTORNEY IN CHEQUE DISHONOUR CASES (COMPLAINT U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,1881)_*
Power-of-attorney holder of legal heirs of the deceased complainant cannot file petition to continue the prosecution: U/S 138 of the N.I. Act, the original complainant died. The legal heirs of the deceased complainant appointed agents under power of attorney to proceed with the complaint. The power-of-attorney holders filed petition U/S 302 of Cr.P.C. to continue the prosecution. In this case the Supreme Court held that neither heirs of the complainant filed petition U/S 302 of the Code to continue the prosecution nor any permission was sought by them from the competent Court that they should be allowed to continue the prosecution through their power-of-attorney holders, rather the prayer was made by the power-of-attorney holders, which is not permissible under law. But the liberty was given to the heirs either to make an application themselves before the Court concerned to continue the prosecution or apply to the Court to grant permission to them to authorize a power-of-attorney holder to continue the prosecution on their behalf.
*[Jimmy Jahangir Madan Vs. Bolly Cariyappa Hindley, AIR 2005 SC 48 = (2004) 12 SCC 509].*
**********************