Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN
National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by it Regional Manager, Regional Office, Guwahati – Appellant
Versus
Shiju Kalita, W/o Late Girish Kalita – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. N. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Prashad, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. In this appeal, under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, the appellant, the National Insurance Company Limited, has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and award dated 07.07.2018, passed in MAC Case No. 2308/2014, by the learned Additional District Judge No.3 cum Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (‘Tribunal’, for short). It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award, dated 07.07.2018, the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant - National Insurance Company Limited to pay a sum of Rs. 6,05,000/- to the claimants/respondents Nos. 1 – 4 herein, with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition and in the event of failing to pay the same, then the amount shall carry additional interest @ 8% per annum.
3. The back grounds facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:-
“On 31/12/2013, at about 3.00 pm, when Girish Kalita, since deceased, was waiting for a bus, along with his friend Shri Krishna Bishwakarma at D
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.
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
