MALASRI NANDI
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Gautam Das, S/o Late Golok Chandra Das – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The insurance company has preferred an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 13.09.2012 in MAC Case No.182/2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge FTC No.2/Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati.
2. This appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge FTC No.2/ Member, MACT Kamrup did not take into consideration the following facts while directing the appellant insurance company to pay the awarded amount with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle:
ii) The driving licence of the victim driver had expired about four years back resulting in violation of policy conditions;
iii) Although the claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of the MV Act as per which the maximum income that can be considered is Rs.40,000/- per year but the income was considered by the tribunal as Rs.94392/- resulting in violation of statutory provisions;
iv) The fact that the claimant was given employment by the owner of the vehicle after death of his father was not considered by the learned Member, MACT. Hence, the claimant/respondent No.1 was no
Krishna Vishweshwar Hede v. Karnataka SRTC [(2008) 15 SCC 771]
Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak [(2002) 6 SCC 455]
Under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants are not required to prove negligence; the onus lies on the insurer to establish any negligence to deny compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 163(a) of the MV Act, including the maintainability of claim petitions and the insurer's ability to r....
Under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot raise the defense of negligence against claimants, the deceased cannot be treated as a third party if they are related to the vehicle's....
Contributory negligence must be substantiated by evidence; lack thereof necessitates full liability of the insurer, not apportionment of compensation.
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove rashness and negligence in claims under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the applicability of res ipsa loquitur in determining n....
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.