KAUSTAV GOGOI AND ANR Vs. BHARATI GOGOI AND 2 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-2-28
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on February 20,2018

Kaustav Gogoi And Anr Appellant
VERSUS
Bharati Gogoi And 2 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - (1.) Heard Mrs. P. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the appellants as well as R. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. None appears on call for the respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e. the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, although notices have been duly served on them, as such, this appeal is heard ex-parte against them.
(2.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MV Act") is preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.03.2010, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sivasagar in MAC Case No. 78/2006, whereby an award of Rs.1,00,000/- was passed in favour of the appellants/claimants on death of their father in a motor vehicular accident.
(3.) As per the claim petition, on 10.10.2005 at about 4:00 AM, the deceased, namely, Late Dr. Thanu Gogoi was proceeding from Guwahati to Sivasagar in a Maruti Car bearing registration No. AS-03/B-7123, which was being driven by the respondent No. 2. When the car reached Dighalati Market, Nagaon, suddenly a herd of cows were crossing the road in a very haphazard manner. In order to save the cows, the driver applied sudden brake. But the car skidded and moved down from the road and hit a tree and turned upside down. The deceased, who was sitting on the front side of the car, sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, he was shifted to a private hospital (GNRC) at Guwahati. On 11.10.2005, he was shifted to New Delhi (Sir Ganga Ram Hospital) and on 01.02.2006, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. Later on, he was shifted to GMC Hospital, Guwahati and on 12.07.2006, he succumbed due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was stated that the deceased was 62 years of age and retired from Government Service and through his profession, he was he was earning an income of Rs. 25,000/- per month and he had left behind his wife and two sons. It was further projected that a sum of Rs.11,02,765.56 was spent in his treatment and a total claim of Rs.35,16,459/- was made. The offending vehicle was stated to be insured by the respondent No. 3.;


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