Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bikash Ghosh S/o-sri Narayan Ghosh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mrs. S. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.K. Nath, the learned counsel for the respondent side.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company impugning the judgment and award dated 21.12.2016, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 82/2014.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 12.12.2013, at about 9:50 P.M., the claimant was riding a Motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-05-E/3935 from Tapan Nagar, Golaghat towards Islampatty, and while he reached near No.1 Railway Gate, an unknown vehicle, which was coming from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, and in order to escape from the imminent accident from the said unknown vehicle, he steered his Motorcycle towards the left- hand side of the road. In that process, the Motorcycle suddenly dashed against the back side of a stationary vehicle which was parked at the extreme left hand side of the road. As a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his person. After the a
A claimant who is a permissive user of a vehicle cannot maintain a compensation claim against the owner or insurer under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
A borrower of a vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as they step into the shoes of the owner and are not considered a third party.
A borrower of a vehicle is not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, nor under personal accident coverage unless specific conditions are met.
The court established that a claimant under the Motor Vehicles Act should be given an opportunity to amend their petition when the tribunal improperly converts the claim from one section to another, ....
Motor Accident - Respondent/claimant is not covered under the M.V. Act as the injured/claimant stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle in question. Thus, he cannot be stated to be third pa....
Legal heirs of the tort-feasor are not entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer of the motorcycle.
The legal heirs of the deceased, as the tort-feasor, were not entitled to maintain the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant-Insurance Company.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of contributory negligence, violation of seating capacity, and the burden of proof under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in....
A claimant must be a third party to maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act; a driver cannot claim compensation for injuries sustained while driving their own vehicle.
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
