Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 1096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Janti Das - Appellant
Vs.
New India Assurance Co Ltd And Anr. - Respondent
Motor Accident Claims Appeal No. 328 of 2016
Decided On : 03-10-2018
C. Baruah, Adv., D. Baruah, Adv., B. Baruah, Adv., D.R. Dutta, Adv., S. Dutta, Adv., N. Modi, Adv., R. Goswami, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation Claim - Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the liability of the driver, owner, and insurers of the vehicles involved in a road traffic accident. The judgment referenced Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which deals with the procedure for making a claim for compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a claim petition for compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The appellant alleged that the accident occurred due to the fault of a truck parked on the road without proper caution. The tribunal held both vehicles at fault and assessed the appellant's disability at 30%.
Finding of the Court:
The court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,92,200/- along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing till realization. The court directed both insurance companies to indemnify the claimant as per the ratio indicated by the tribunal.
Issues: The issues included determining the cause of the accident, the entitlement of the claimant to compensation, and the relief the claimant is entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court assessed the claimant's income and disability based on the evidence presented. It relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court to assess the claimant's income and upheld the tribunal's assessment of the claimant's disability at 30%.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs. 4,92,200/- along with interest. Both insurance companies were directed to indemnify the claimant as per the tribunal's ratio.
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 (the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.)
2. The present appellant preferred a claim petition before the learned Member, MACT, Lakhimpur, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, praying for compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant/claimant is that on 31.12.2010, while he was travelling from Kaziranga by a Tata Winger vehicle bearing Regn. No.AS-07 C/0266 towards Laluk and the vehicle reached at Dholpur, the vehicle met with an accident, as the said vehicle dashed against one truck bearing Regn. No.AS-01 C/9215, which was stationing on the middle of the road. The claimant sustained severe injuries on his person and he was immediately treated at GMCH and after some recovery from the injuries, he preferred the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation on account of injury he suffered which is according to him disabled the claimant to certain extent.
4. The learned Tribunal issued notice to the driver, owner as well as insurer of both the offending vehicles and in turn, the driver of the Tata Winger contested the case by filing written statement, contending inter alia that he had the requisite driving license at the time of occurrence and the owner also not liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle was insured with the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., at the time of incident. So the compensation, if any is to be indemnified by the Insurance Company. The owner of the Tata Winger also contested the case by filing written statement, contending that the accident occurred due to the fault of the truck which was stationed on the road without proper caution and protection. It was also stated that the vehicle was duly insured with the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and so the compensation, if any is to be indemnified by the Insurance Company.
5. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. in their written statement has stated that the owner of the vehicle No.AS-07 C/0266 is to produce the relevant insurance policy, registration certificate, driving license, etc. failing which the Insurance Company has no liability to pay the compensation. However, it was contended that they were not aware of the accident and that the claim petition is excessive and speculative.
6. However the driver and the owner of the truck did not turn up before the Tribunal to contest the case for which the case proceeded ex-parte against them.
7. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which was the insurer of the offending truck filed their written statement, denying the liability of the aforesaid truck. It was stated in fact that the winger vehicle by its own fault and negligent driving, dashed against the stationing vehicle and the said truck was not at fault for the accident. It is also contended that liability to pay compensation is subject to production of the relevant documents such as insurance policy, driving license, etc.
8. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the alleged accident took place on 31.12.2010 at 12 pm, at Dholpur under Bihpuria PS due to rush and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AS.07.C/0266 (Tata Winger) or due to carelessness and negligent parking of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AS.01.C/9215 (Truck) by its driver causing injury to the person of claimant, Sri Janti Das?
(2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for, and if so, from whom?
(3) What other relief/relief’s the claimant is entitled to?
9. In course of the proceeding, the claimant examined fiv
