VINEET KOTHARI, H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
Divisional Manager – Appellant
Versus
Tousif Husenkhan Pathan – Respondent
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.
The appellants have filed these appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Court of Fast Track Court and Member, Addl. MACT, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short), in MVC No.231/2014 on 22-12-2014.
2. The appellant in MFA No. 100559/2015 has prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award under appeal, whereas the appellant in MFA No. 101249/2015 has prayed for enhancement of the compensation by modifying the judgment and award under appeal.
3. In appellant in MFA No. 100559/2015, which is the Insurance Company, was the respondent No. 2 in the Tribunal below. The said appellant in the present appeal has contended that the Tribunal below has grossly erred in assessing the neurological disability of the claimant to the extent of 80%, in the absence of any disability certificate issued by the Neurologist or any evidence tendered before the MACT by the Neurologist with regard to the neurological disability. The Tribunal ought to have discar
Chikkamma and another v. Paravathamma and another, AIR 2017 SC 1732
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.