A delay in reporting a motor accident does not invalidate a claim given humanitarian priorities. Insurers must provide affirmative, cogent evidence to substantiate allegations of license forgery and cannot exercise recovery rights without conducting a formal inquiry that affords the vehicle owner a proper opportunity to be heard.

Judgment :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.

1.The Appellant before this Court was an opposite party in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 17.02.2024. Passed by Learned Additional District Judge 4th Court Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No. 160 of 2017. The claimants/respondents no-1 and 2 being also aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Learned Trial Court have filed cross objection being COT No-145 of 2024.

2. The case of the claimants before Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus:

3. On 31/12/2016 at about 10.00 P.M. the victim was returning his house from Chhota Tangra near Khargapur SD. Hospital by foot through the left side of Chhota Tangra to Jhapatapur Road. At that time on the way near Chhota Tangra Kali Mandir under Khargapur Town P.S. one Motor Cycle bearing No. WB-36E/2518 came from Khargapur. S.D. Hospital side towards Jhapatapur side with a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed the victim from his back side as he was thrown off and he came in contact with road side pole and received head injury and other injuries all over his body and became unconscious. Immediately after accident local people admitted him in Khargapur S.D. Hospital. As the injuries were serious he was referred to Midnapore Medical College and Hospital in that night but the victim died on the next day ie on 01/01/2017 in Midnapore Medical College and hospital.

4. The accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Motor Cycle bearing No. WB-36E/2518. The deceased was a bachelor. He was working as security Guard under Contractor DOLPHIN ENTERPRISE Subhas Pally Khargapur and he was posted at NURSING TRAINING SCHOOL, Khargapur S.D. Hospital and was drawring salary of Rs. 9,500/- (Rupees nine thousand and five hundred) approx. He was the sole earning member of his family consisting of himself and the petitioners. On his death the whole family is put to inconceivable difficulties and hardship and the petitioners received tremendous mental pain and shock which will continue throughout their lives.

5. Pursuant to the filing of this case notice was issued upon opposite party vehicle owner and opposite party Insurance Company. Opposite party owner although appeared and filed written statement but thereafter did not contest the case. Opposite Party National Insurance Company filed written statement and contested the case. ISSUES were framed and evidence was adduced by the claimants and Insurance Company. Learned Trial Judge by Judgment and Award dated 17-02-2024 was pleased to dispose the claim case by observing and directing as follows:

‘Hence it is ordered that the MAC case no-160 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest without cost against the OP No-2, National Insurance Company Limited and in ex-parte against the owner of the vehicle without costs.

6. However in accordance with the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment reported in 2018 (1) TAC 360(SC) the insurance company is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle after making payment of the compensation to the petitioners.

7. OP No. 2 National Insurance Company Limited,