Back
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J
Chandra Maya Sunwar – Appellant
Versus
Geeta Mukhia – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of claim petitions under the motor vehicles act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. analysis of section 163a, 164, and 166 applicability and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. (Para 7) |
| 3. recalculation of just compensation based on established income, future prospects, and multiplier method. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The instant Appeal arises out of the grievance of the Claimant/Appellant, on account of the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, “MACT”), disposing of the matter as one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, the “MV Act”), instead of Section 166 of the MV Act, while contrarily granting compensation of ₹ 5,00,000/- to the Appellant/Claimant under Section 164 of the MV Act (as amended in 2019).
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, opening his arguments, contended that, not only was the Learned MACT in error in disposing of the Petition as mentioned above but also in observing erroneously in the impugned Judgment that, as compensation under Section 163A of the MV Act, would be much less than that under Section 164 of the Amended Act, hence the l
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
