The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence of insurance policy terms and conditions to determine the liability of the insurer and the methodology for calculating compensation under the W.C. Act and MV Act.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Thadani, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the MV Act", in short) is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.10.2009 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sankardev Nagar at Hojai , Nagaon ("the Tribunal", in short), in MACT Case No. 369/2008. By the said judgment and award dated 23.10.2009, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 8,74,000/- as compensation to the claimants who are the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, with the further direction to the appellant, who is the insurer of the offending vehicle, to make the payment of the same within 60 days from the date of the said judgment and order and failure to make payment of the said amount of compensation within the stipulated period of 60 days, an interest @ 8.5% per annum shall be calculated on the compensation amount until payment.

3. The facts leading to the institution of the claim application are that on 19.01.2008, at about 3-30 p.m., when the vehicle bearing registration No. ASK3866, a truck ("the subject-vehicle", in short), was proceeding from Borbil Bakum Gaon under Howraghat Police Station, District - Karbi Anglong towards Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, Nagaon, it met with an accident on the road side near Village -Pomwe Cro under Howraghat Police Station. The deceased Sanjit Ch. Das who was a handyman in the subject-vehicle, was on the said subject-vehicle and in the accident, he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Hojai for treatment. On being advised by the doctor at Hojai, he was thereafter, shifted to the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital (the GMCH) at Guwahati but at about 6-20 p.m., he succumbed to his injuries at the GMCH. In connection with the said accident, a case being Howraghat Police Station No. 7/2008, was registered under Section 279/304A, Indian Penal Code(IPC) against the driver of the subject-vehicle, on the basis of an Ejahar lodged by the wife of the deceased who is the respondent No. 1 herein. After the death of the deceased, the post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased was done at the GMCH.

4. Subsequent to the death of the deceased, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein as the claimants, had preferred an application under Section 166 of the Act before the learned Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 21,00,000/- on the ground that the death of the deceased arose out of and in course of his employment involving a motor vehicle and arrayed the owner-cum-driver and the insurer of the subject-vehicle as opposite parties. The said claim application was registered and numbered as MACT Case No. 369/2008. On registration of the same, the learned Tribunal issued notices to both the opposite parties. On receipt of notice, both the opposite parties appeared and submitted their respective written statement. The owner-cum-driver as opposite party No. 2 in its written statement stated that at a relevant time of occurrence, the subjectvehicle was duly insured with the opposite party No. 1-insurer with a valid policy of insurance and had all the valid documents. The contention advanced by the owner-cum-driver was that as the subject-vehicle was duly insured, he as the insured, was liable to be indemnified by the insurer of the subject-vehicle. The owner-cum-driver had denied the other contentions made in the claim application. The insurer had denied its liability by taking all the available pleas, thereby, putting the claimants to the strict proof.

5. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following three issues:-

(i) Whether the offending vehicle No. ASK 3886 was driven rashly and negligently at the time of accident and whether the claimants husband Sanjit Ch. Das died in the said accident?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation and from who