IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kaushik Goswami
Payari Devi W/O Sri Nathuni Singh – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar Jain S/O Late Praksh Chand Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. A Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. C Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. K. K Bhatta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Insurance Company.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.02.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in M.A.C. Case No. 2122/2012, whereby the Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- and awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,36,500/- (rupees six lakhs thirty six thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 6% from 02.09.2015.
3. The claimants/appellants seeks enhancement of the award on the primary ground that the learned Tribunal failed to properly assess the income of the deceased. It is contended that although the claimant produced both, a salary certificate and the Income-Tax Returns (ITRs) of the deceased, the Tribunal rejected the salary certificate for want of proof and did not take into account the exhibited ITRs while determining the income of the de
Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh & Ors.
Sangita Arya and Ors -Vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi & Ors.
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.