UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PURNIMA DAS AND 2 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-5-135
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 31,2018

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Purnima Das And 2 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. R.K. Bhatra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 i.e. the National Insurance Co. Ltd. None appears on call for the other respondent.
(2.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is for claiming enhancement of compensation passed vide judgment and award dated 07.02.2011, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 356/2007 (MAC Case No. 2297/2005).
(3.) The case in the claim petition was that on 16.02.2005, at about 11.30 pm., the deceased Badan Das met with an accident at Dimow Madhupur village under Dimow P.S. and the victim died on the spot. It was projected that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of a Maruti Car bearing registration No. AS-06-B-6940 by its driver and therefore, prayer was made for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with 12% interest. The respondent No. 1, wife of the deceased was the claimant No. 1 and her two daughters being minors at the relevant time where the claimants No. 2 and 3 in the claim. In the claim petition, it was projected that the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of his death and he was a mechanic having a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- per month and that the said accident was registered as Dimow P.S. G.D. Entry No. 362 dated 16.02.2005 and the post mortem of the dead body was conducted by the doctors at Dimow CHC. The respondent No. 8 herein, who had arrayed as opposite party No. 6 in the claim petition had filed its written objection and made a statement that there was no allegation of any rash and negligent driving against the vehicle bearing registration No. NL-06- A-0779 insured by them. The appellant herein, who had arrayed as opposite party No. 1 in the claim petition also contested the claim. The appellant denied their liability and by taking the usual plea, the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 put to strict proof of their claim.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.