Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Nelson Sailo, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Minu Rani Paul and Others – Respondents
MAC App. 232 of 2012 and MAC App. 64 of 2013
Decided On : 24-05-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K., Goswami, Ms. M. Choudhury
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Phukan, Mr. A.C Mahanta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 147, in determining liability and compensation in cases of motor accidents.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Breach of Insurance Policy, Negligence, Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) - Section 147, 12% per annum - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two appeals filed by insurance companies against a judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The deceased was traveling in a Volvo Bus when it was hit by a Tata truck, resulting in fatalities and injuries. The Tribunal found both appellants equally negligent and directed them to pay compensation to the claimants in a 50:50 ratio.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a breach of the insurance policy by the owner of the Volvo Bus and upheld the Tribunal's decision to apportion the liability equally between the two appellants. The court directed the appellants to deposit the awarded amount within six weeks.
Issues: Breach of insurance policy, negligence, apportionment of liability, compensation
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the finding of contributory negligence and breach of the insurance policy, leading to the apportionment of liability. The court also emphasized the applicability of the Motor Vehicles Act in granting appropriate compensation to victims of motor accidents.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the appellants were directed to deposit the awarded amount within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. Two (2) separate appeals have been filed against the same judgment dated 03.05.2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) at Dibrugarh in MACT Case No. 36/2006. MAC Appeal No. 232/2012 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., while MAC Appeal No. 64/2013 is filed by the M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. The appellants were arrayed as opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 respectively in the claim before the Tribunal. As such, the two appeals are taken up together for final disposal.
2. Heard Mr. SK Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 232/2012 and Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 64/2013. I have also heard Mr. S. Chamaria, the learned counsel, who appears for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in both the appeals. Service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the two (2) appeals were deemed to be complete vide Order dated 08.08.2012 passed in MAC Appeal No. 232/2012. None appears for the respondent No. 7.
3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the claimants/respondents may be narrated at the outset.
4. The deceased, Sh. Sankar Paul was travelling in a Volvo Bus bearing registration No. AS-01/U-5585, which was travelling from Moran to Guwahati. While the bus reached near Nazirakhat on NH-37, another vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/C- 7771 (Tata truck) came from the opposite direction and while crossing the Volvo Bus, it hit the bus just behind the seat of the driver of the bus and up to the rear seat smashing the windows of the bus causing injuries to many passengers. Due to the accident, 4 (four) passengers died on the spot. The deceased, who is the husband of the respondent No. 1, father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and son of the respondent No. 4 sustained injuries and he was taken to Guwahati Medical College Hospital but he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. As a result, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed the claim application before the Tribunal at Dibrugarh and the claim was registered as MACT Case No. 36/2006.
5. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who was the insurer of the Volvo Bus, was arrayed as opposite party No. 2 in the claim while the M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd., who was the insurer of the Tata Truck, was arrayed as opposite party No. 5. During the claim proceedings, the claimants examined 2 witnesses, while the opposite party No. 2/appellant in MAC Appeal No. 232/2012 examined 1 defence witness. After the pleadings were exchanged and evidence led as stated hereinabove, the Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment dated 03.05.2012, by coming to a finding that both the appellants, who were arrayed as opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 respectively were equally negligent. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the two respondents to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants in the ratio of 50:50 and the total amount awarded was Rs. 9,41,920/-, which should be paid within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment and failing which, interest @ 12% per annum will have to be paid. Aggrieved with the judgment, the appellants are before this Court.
6. Mr. SK Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 232/2012 submits that the Volvo Bus involved in the accident and which was insured with the appellant had the route permit to ply from Silapathar to Nibia via Meghalaya. The permit was valid up to 27.06.2008. However, the Volvo Bus on the date of accident i.e., 04.03.2006 was plying from Moran to Guwahati. In this connection, he refers to the police investigation report submitted under Form-54 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), which was exhibited before the Tribunal as Exhibit-5. He further submits that this fact can be appreciated even from the claimant witness No. 2, Sh. Pradip Paul, who is the brother of the deceased. The said witness in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 24.03.2006 at about 6:25 AM, the deceased was travelling in a Volv
