Mutum B.K. Singh, J. -

Heard Mr. Imti Imsong, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. B. Devnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. None appears for the remaining respondents despite proper service of notice on them.

2. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 9.5.06, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-H, Dimapur, Nagaland in MAC Case No. 2/04, awarding a sum of Rs. 12,88,063.17 (Rupees twelve lakh eighty eight thousand sixty three and seventeen paisa) as compensation in favour of the claimant and apportioning the liability for payment to the respondent No. 3 and the present appellant respectively. Out of the total compensation amount, the MACT fastened on the shoulder of the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,94,120 (Rupees three lakh ninety four thousand one hundred twenty) to the claimant.

3. Facts, in brief, are that on 26.6.04, while the claimant namely, Nasiruddin Barbhuiya accompanied by a friend proceeding towards Badarpur from Silchar in a Maruti Car bearing No. AS-011C 6894, being driven by himself met a vehicular accident at Salchapra Gehagrapar, as hit by a Truck bearing No. AS-25/B-4592 coming from the opposite direction. In the said vehicular accident, the claimant sustained multiple fracture and grievous injuries on his body and ultimately became a permanently disabled person. The claimant being represented by his younger brother filed a claim application under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a sum of Rs. 13,73,063.17 (Rupees thirteen lakh seventy three thousand sixty three and seventeen paisa) as compensation against the owner, driver and insurer of the truck and that the owner and the insurer of the Maruti car were also impleaded as proforma-opposite parties. The claim application was resisted by the insurer of the truck and the proforma opposite parties by filing separate written statement. At the conclusion of the enquiry and on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the impugned order and held that the truck was solely responsible for the vehicular accident in question and assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 12,88,063.17 (Rupees twelve lakh eighty eight thousand sixty three and seventeen paisa). However, the learned Claims Tribunal apportioned the liability for payment of compensation to both the insurers i.e. the present respondent No. 3 and the appellant. Being aggrieved by the order of apportionment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. That, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since there was no contributory negligence from the driver of the Maruti vehicle in the said accident, no liability for payment of compensation could be fastened on the shoulder of the appellant. Per contra, the that the accident was a head on collision between two vehicles due to contributory negligence of both the vehicles and as such the learned Claims Tribunal rightly apportioned the compensation amount.

5. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the only question to be adjudicated in this appeal is as to whether the learned Claims Tribunal was justified in apportioning the liability for payment of compensation to both the insurers or not?

6. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the involvement of two vehicles in the said accident and the present appellant as well as the respondent No. 3 are the insurer of the Maruti vehicle and the truck. It is also an admitted fact that the claimant was driving the Maruti vehicle at the time of the accident. The claimant through his younger brother filed the claim application against the driver owner and the insurer of the truck alleging that the accident took place exclusively for the fault of the driver of the truck which was coming from the opposite direction. During the course of enquiry, the Claims Tribunal while

Click Here to Read the rest of this document