IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN
National Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager – Appellant
Versus
Sudha Kumari – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the accident and compensation awarded. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's challenge to compensation determination. (Para 4 , 12) |
| 3. court's analysis on evidence and compensation guidelines. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. legal precedence regarding delay in fir and compensation criteria. (Para 7 , 9 , 20 , 22) |
| 5. conclusion affirming tribunal's decision. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 has been preferred by the insurance company of the offending Loader No.UP-75K-9134 against the impugned judgment and award dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah in MACP No. 14 of 2019, Smt. Sudha Kumari & others Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & another, whereby, compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants for the untimely death of Nand Kishore (deceased) in a motor accident which occured on 12.11.2018, which was ordered to be indemnified by the appellant insurance company.
2. Factual matrix is that on 12.11.2018 at about 01.00 PM between village Killi and Ritauli, within the jurisdiction of police station
Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Others
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & 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.