Guwahati Court October 1991 Judgments

State of Assam Vs. Pranesh Debnath and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of both Civil Revision No. 83 of 1991 and M.A. (F) No. 20 of 1991.2. The revision petition (Civil Revision No. 83 of 1991) has been filed by the State of Assam under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kokrajhar under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 1988 Act) awarding a sum of Rs. 7,500/- (Sic. Rs. 12,000/-) by way of compensation in respect of permanent disablement resulting from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company, namely, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the claimant were arrayed as the opposite parlies. Notice of motion was issued on them. In response thereto all of them appeared through their respective Counsel. The petitoner, the State of Assam, was represented by Mr. B.B. Narzary, Government Advocate. The owner of the vehicle was represented by Mr. S.N. Bhu...

National Insurance Co. Ltd and anr. Vs. Usha Debi and anr.

Court: Guwahati

S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.1. In both the appeals, the orders of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for payment of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act of 1988') have been impugned. According to the appellants, accident in both the cases having taken place for to coming into force of the Act of 1988, appellants' liability to pay compensation, any, is governed by the provisions of law in force on the date of accident, i.e.,by dovisions of Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and the fixed amount on compensation on the principle of no fault liability should have been Rs. 15,000/- in each as provided under Section 92--A of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and not Rs. 25,000/- as provided under Section 140 of Act of 1988. Reliance has been placed in the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in M.A. (F) No. 2 of 1990 and M.A. (F) No. 4 of 1990.2. On the question as the whether the provision of Section 140 of Act of 1988 shallha...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Mullick Harbans Lal and Co. and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Homchaudhuri, J. 1. In this two revision petitions preliminary point needs to be decided as to whether against the appellate judgment passed in the appeal, as contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, a revision lies to the High Court.2. A single Bench of this Court presided by Hon'ble Phukan, J. by the judgment and order passed in the case of Union of India v. D.S. Narula & Co. (Civil Revision No. 33(H)/85, reported in 1991 GLJ 400), has held that Arbitration Act being a self-contained statute there is no scope of invoking the revisional jurisdiction against the order of the first appellate Court, inasmuch as, second appeal has been expressly barred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act and there is no provision conferring revisional jurisdiction to the High Court in the said Act. Another single Bench presided by Hon'ble Sangma, J., however, by the judgment and order passed on 1-6-90 passed in these revision petitions has expressed a different view. Under the circum...

Surya Kanta Talukdar Vs. Assam State Electricity Board and ors.

Court: Guwahati

U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Assam State Electricity Board and its officers to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of his daughter due to electrocution on 18.3.1991 at about 5.30 a.m. Mr. N.N. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel for the Assam State Electricity Board, who appeared for the respondents, opposed the admission of the writ petition on the ground that the proper remedy is by way of a suit2. The petitioner has two adult sons and four daughters of whom three have been married. The youngest daughter Dipti Talukdar, aged about 15 years, was studying in the IX Standard. According to him, at about 5.30 a.m. on 18.3.1991 when she was walking on the road, her leg came in contact with a broken naked electric wire lying on the road and she the d by electrocution. He alleged that on the previous night a tree near his house ...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Usha Debi and anr.

Court: Guwahati

S.K. Homchaudhuri, J. 1. In both the appeals, the orders of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for payment of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act of 1988') have been impugned. According to the appellants, accident in both the cases having taken place prior to coming into force of the Act of 1988, appellants' liability to pay compensation, if any, is governed by the provisions of law in force on the date of accident, i.e., by provisions of Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and the fixed amount of compensation on the principle of no fault liability should have been Rs. 15,000/- in each as provided under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and not Rs. 25,000/- as provided under Section 140 of Act of 1988. Reliance has been placed in the decision of a single Bench of this court in M.A. (F) No. 2 of 1990 and M.A. (F) No. 4 of 1990.2. On the question as to whether the provision of Section 140 of Act of 1988...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Mullick Harbans Lal and Co. and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR1992Gau103

Homchaudhuri, J.1. In this two revision petitions preliminary point needs to be decided as to whether against the appellate judgment passed in the appeal, as contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, a revision lies to the High Court.2. A single Bench of this Court presided by Hon'ble Phukan, J. by the judgment and order passed in the case of Union of India v. D.S. Narula & Co. (Civil Revision No. 33(H)/85, reported in 1991 GLJ 400), has held that Arbitration Act being a self-contained statute there is no scope of invoking the revisional jurisdiction against the order of the first appellate Court, inasmuch as, second appeal has been expressly barred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act and there is no provision conferring revisional jurisdiction to the High Court in the said Act. Another single Bench presided by Hon'ble Sangma, J., however, by the judgment and order passed on 1-6-90 passed in these revision petitions has expressed a different view. Under the circumstance...

Sachan Chandra Das Vs. Edilik Sangma and ors.

Court: Guwahati

S.K. Homchaudhury, J.1. In these seven revision petitions, the common question urged by the petitioner which needs to be decided is whether the Deputy Commissioner of the West Garo Hills District could be appointed as a member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act of 1939') and now under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act of 1988'). As such, petitions are disposed of by the common judgment.2. Sub-section (3) of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provides that:110. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal unless he-(a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or(b) is, or has been, a District Judge, or(c) is qualified for appointment as Judge of the High Court.By Act No. 59 of 1988, the Act of 1939 was repealed and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been enacted. Sub-section (3) of Section 165 of the Act ...