Back
MALASRI NANDI
Jaymati Kachari W/o Lt. Biren Ch. Kachari – Appellant
Versus
Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 29.05.2013 passed by the ld. Member, MACT No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 466/2010.
3. The present appellant as claimant had filed a claim case vide MAC Case No. 466/2010 before the Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup, praying for compensation for causing the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident on 01.02.2010 at Parbahusuba at about 1 a.m. under Tangla P.S. in district of Darrang, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Regd No. AS-13-C-1003 (Tata Sumo). At the relevant time, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No. 1 (insurance company). After recording the evidence of the witnesses and considering the other documents available in the record, the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup, delivered the judgment and awarded compensation amounting to Rs.13,88,408/-.
4. Bring highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award, as aforesaid, the cl
The main legal point established in the judgment is that family pension cannot be deducted from compensation, and future prospects and dependency deductions should be considered in the calculation of....
Point of Law : While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age o....
Interpretation of 'pecuniary advantage' and 'compassionate appointment' under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the application of multiplier and deduction guidelines for calculating compensation.
Point of law: The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after mak....
The court established that multiplier for compensation depends on the accurate assessment of the deceased's age and clarified that family pension cannot be included as income for loss of dependency.
The judgment emphasizes the correct computation of compensation in motor accident claims, considering factors such as pension deduction and loss of future prospects.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
