Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
BUDI HABUNG
National Insurance Co.Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smti. Diptee Choudhury – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BUDI HABUNG, J.
Heard Mr. R.K. Bhatra assisted by Ms. A. Biyani, learned counsels for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. By an order dated 30.05.2022, this court made an observation that if the respondents remain absent, the matter shall proceed ex- parte against the respondents/claimants. This is an old case of 2011. About 14 years have gone by since filing of this appeal. Trial court record have received long back. Notice was duly received by the respondents. Earlier, they were represented by advocate by filing vakalatnama. However, the matter remained pending for non- representation of the respondents. This Court is of the opinion that the matter cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period for non- representation of the parties even after received of notice. According the matter was taken up for hearing.
3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 , assailing the judgment and award dated 08.07.2009, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur, in MAC case No. 02/2008, awarding an amou
Both the deceased and the truck owner exhibited negligence, leading to a 75:25 liability split for compensation in a vehicular accident case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper attribution of contributory negligence and the computation of just and reasonable compensation.
The Court upheld a 50% contributory negligence finding against both drivers while ensuring compensation computation aligns with the deceased's employment status and age, impacting the multiplier used....
Point of Law : Motor Accident - tort-feasor – Evidence which was recorded immediately after the accident, cannot be over looked and give way to the ocular evidence of the person, whose presence at th....
Point of Law : where the place was dark and where the vehicle was parked without any sign or indication to warn other Road users, the negligence is on the driver of the parked vehicle and not the dri....
The absence of warning signals while parking a vehicle constitutes sole negligence, making the vehicle owner fully liable for resultant accidents, with no contributory negligence from the victim.
The judgment clarified the legal principles distinguishing contributory negligence from composite negligence, establishing that in accidents involving multiple vehicles, liability should be apportion....
Negligence in parking leads to liability; contributory negligence must be proven. Compensation for loss of dependency must factor in future prospects, resulting in a higher award.
The court apportioned negligence in a road accident, holding the stationary truck driver 75% negligent, and enhanced compensation based on the deceased's income as a skilled driver.
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
