Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Bhabani Boro W/o Late Prasanta Boro – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the accident and initial claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contradictory statements by the insurance company. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. inconsistencies in insurance coverage claims. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. compensation calculation and legal standards. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. issues with insurance policy and discrepancies. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. conclusion and remand decision. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. P Hazarika, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Insurance Company. None appears for the remaining respondents i.e. the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment & award dated 06.03.2017 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 1747/2011, whereby the claim petition of the present appellant was allowed but the Insurance Company was absorbed of the liability, which was thrust upon the owner of the offending vehicle.
3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. On 20.09.2011 the husband /father of the appellants namely, Prasanta Boro was travelling on a motor cycle from Sonapur side towards Guwa
The court emphasized the need for consistency in claims made by parties in related cases, reiterating the principle against taking contradictory stands within the same matter.
The court affirmed that compensation for a non-earning spouse must be calculated as a third of the earning spouse’s income, despite the absence of a vehicle permit not exempting insurance liabilities....
Point of Law : Power vested under Article 142 of the Constitution is an extra ordinary jurisdiction which is not exercisable by this Court or the MACT and therefore, it can be said that exercise made....
An 'Act Only Policy' does not cover occupants in a vehicle, and courts must assess compensation based on established minimum wage standards and proper multipliers.
The court ruled that compensation for motor vehicle accidents must reflect just compensation, emphasizing the burden of proof on the insurer regarding the driver's licence validity.
The court established that both insurance companies are jointly and severally liable for compensation in cases of composite negligence, ensuring victims receive just compensation.
The court established that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent, affirming the liability of both the driver and the insurer for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court established that both the driver and the insurer are jointly liable for compensation in cases of negligent driving resulting in fatal accidents.
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
