Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
BUDI HABUNG
Bhargav Chaliha S/o Sri Purna Chaliha – Appellant
Versus
Musstt Rahima Begum – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(BUDI HABUNG, J.)
Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. R. Baishya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 30.08.2014, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur, Tezpur in MAC case no. 383 /2008.
3. The case leading to the filing of this appeal is that the husband of the respondent no. 1/claimant, Mojibur Rahman met with a vehicular accident on 17.08.2008, following which he succumbed to his injuries on 19.08.2008 at Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur. The respondent no. 1/Claimant filed the claim application No. MAC case no. 383/2008, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act) before the learned Member, MACT, Sonitpur, Tezpur, seeking a total compensation amount of Rs. 7,69,000/-. The claimant has impleaded the owner, the driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle as opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively there.
4. The respondent/opposite party incl
A party should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel; courts can remand cases for retrial to allow additional evidence.
Permit renewals under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act are retroactively effective, impacting liability determinations in accident claims.
Point of law: vehicle which did not have permit to ply on the road which fact cannot but be heid to be in violation of policy conditions. The contention that the owner should not be made liable even ....
The insurance company must prove any breach of policy conditions to avoid liability for compensation claims.
Deviation from the permit route does not absolve the insurance company from liability if the vehicle was used for its intended purpose.
The court established that procedural fairness is essential in adjudicating claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly regarding the validity of driving licenses and the opportunity for partie....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of permit conditions under the Motor Vehicle Act and the liability of the insurance company in a motor accident case.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact, and adverse inference cannot be drawn without evidence.
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
