Back
MALASRI NANDI
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jamuna Mandal Wife of Late Indra Mandal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr S Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and Mr A T Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2016, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 79/2015, by awarding a compensation amounting to Rs. 7,99,000/-(Rupees Seven Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand) only in favour of the respondents/claimants.
3. The factum of accident has not been challenged in the case. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the owner/driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time of accident was not having valid driving licence in his name. The Insurance Company adduced evidence of one Debojit Borkotoky, who in his evidence stated that the driving licence was in the name of one Sahidul Islam and not in the name of Amar Biswas, the driver of the offending vehicle. The said witness exhibited the letter of DTO, Nalbari, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the same and came to an erroneous finding that the appellant has failed to prove that the owner/driver had not possessed valid driving licence
The insurer's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act is contingent upon proving that the driver was unlicensed and that the vehicle owner was aware of this fact; mere allegations of a fake license do....
A learner's licence is valid under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Insurance Company failed to prove breach of policy conditions, leading to a revised compensation amount.
The validity of the driver's license and the established method of computing compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act were central to the judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the claimants unless it can be proved that the insured was aware of the fake license and still pe....
The court ruled that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation first, despite the driver's invalid license, and established guidelines for calculating future prospects and multipliers in co....
The court affirmed the validity of the driver's license and ruled that the Insurance Company failed to prove negligence, thus holding it liable for compensation.
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
