Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD - Appellant
Versus
RUBUL BARUAH AND ANOTHER - Respondent
M.A.C. Application No. 183 of 2010
Decided on : 31-01-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, SR. Adv. Mr. A. Borthakur.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Bhatra.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair enquiry to determine the truth in motor accident claim cases, emphasizing the role of the tribunal in seeking the truth and determining just compensation.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 173 - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988] - [Section 149(2), Section 168, Section 169] - The court discussed the issues of bodily injury in a motor vehicle accident, rash and negligent driving, and entitlement to compensation. The judgment and award were challenged based on lack of insurance and doubting the genuineness of the accident. The court found that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal were not sustainable on facts and in law, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent claimed bodily injury and sought compensation for an accident involving a motorcycle. The appellant contested the case, raising issues of insurance validity and genuineness of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal were not sustainable on facts and in law, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Issues: The issues included bodily injury in a motor vehicle accident, rash and negligent driving, entitlement to compensation, lack of insurance, and doubting the genuineness of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fair enquiry to arrive at the truth, especially in cases involving contradictory evidence and delayed reporting of accidents. It highlighted the role of the tribunal in seeking the truth and determining just compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and award passed by the tribunal were set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Borthakur, the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. N. Bhatra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/ Claimant. None appears on call for the respondent No.2, i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle and, as such, the appeal has been heard ex parte against the said respondent.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.09.2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge No.2 (FTC), Kamrup, Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 364/2005.
3. The case of the respondent No.1/ claimant as per the claim petition is that on 21.12.2002 at about 5.00 p.m., he was proceeding towards Joysagar to Amguri as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-05-A-3677, which was owned and driven by the respondent No.2. It was claimed that due to bad condition of road, and also for rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.2, the motorcycle turned down on the road side ditch near Samuguri and as a result of the accident, the respondent No.1 suffered fracture injury on his right leg. The respondent No.1 claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The appellant contested the case by filing their written statement and took usual plea of putting the onus of proving the valid licence and validity of the insurance policy. It took a plea of reserving its right to take all defence under the provisions of Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent No.2 in his written statement had taken a stand that he was not driving in a rash and negligent manner and that his motorcycle was insured with the appellant and, as such, he denied his liability for paying any compensation.
4. The following issues were framed for trial by the learned tribunal:-
(i) Whether the claimant Rubul Baruah sustained bodily injury in the Motor vehicle accident that took place on 21.1.2002 due to the use of the vehicle No. AS- 050K-3677?
(ii) Whether the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle No. 25-K-3677?
(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation for the bodily injury sustained by him if so, to what extent and by whom payable?
5. The respondent No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited the following documents, viz., Police Report (Ext.1) , Letter by O.C., Amguri P.S. (Ext.2) , Disability Certificate (Ext.3) , Income Certificate (Ext.4) , Tenancy Certificate (Ext.5) , Newspaper cutting (Ext.6) , Discharge Certificates [Ext.7 (1) to 7 (9) ], Prescriptions [Ext.8 (1) to Ext.8 (61) ], Medical vouchers and cash memos [Ext.9 (1) to Ext.9 (110)], Medical Reports [Ext.10 (1) to Ext.10 (16) ], X Ray Plates [Ext.11 (1) to Ext.11 (7)] Educational Certificates [Ext.12 (1) to Ext.12 (3) , Letter to Principal of Homeopathic College, Mudhina (Ext.13) , Student Registration Card (Ext.14) , (illegible) Certificate (Ext.15) . The appellant had examined their investigator as DW-1 and had proved his investigation report as Ext.A.
6. In respect of issue No.1 and 2, the learned Tribunal had held that the respondent No.1 had stated that he was riding as a pillion rider and the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the motorcycle had become upside down on the road, and that the appellant had recorded a total failure to demolish the said version of PW-1. In light of Accident Information Report (Ext.1), it was held that the accident had occurred due to the said two-wheeler and the respondent No.1 sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said motorcycle and, as such, the issues were decided in favour of the respondent No.1. In respect of issue No.3, it was assumed that the respondent No.1 was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. His expenditure was computed at Rs.1,65,000/- and the respondent No.1 was found to be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffer
