IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
BUDI HABUNG
New India Assurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bipul Baruah, S/o Sri Poran Baruah – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
BUDI HABUNG, J.
Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. G. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/claimant.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment & award, dated 16-03-2022, passed by the learned Additional Member No. 2, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tinsukia, in MAC. Case No. 68/2017, whereby, a compensation amount of Rs. 13,14,600/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be paid to the respondent No. 1/claimant from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the same on account of the death of the claimant's son late Arun Baruah in a motorcycle accident which occurred on 02-10-2014 at about 8.30am.
3. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, at the very outset, has made it clear that the factum of the accident and liability of the insurer/appellant Insurance Company, is not in dispute. The only contention urged by the appellant Insurance Company in this appeal is with regard to the deduction made towards personal and li
Sarla Verma & ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr.
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Somwati & ors. reported
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.