A second claim for the same accident against a different Insurance Company will not be maintainable if the issue involved and the surrounding facts and circumstances are one and the same.

JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Heard, Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 despite notice.

2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the Judgment & Award dated 05.05.2017, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 20/2014, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 63,40,573/- to the claimant/respondent No. 1, as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim i.e., 24.04.2014.

3. Brief facts for disposing the present appeal may be noticed at the outset. It is the case of the claimant/respondent No. 1 that her husband, Sh. C. Hrangkima met with a motor vehicular accident on 01.04.2011 at around 9:50 AM, while coming towards Aizawl from N. Vanlaiphai in a vehicle (Gypsy) bearing registration No. MZ-01-F-1528, belonging to one Sh. K. Rinkima (respondent No. 2) and driven by Sh. Lalruattluanga. The vehicle near Thiak village ran down to the roadside gorge and as a result, the driver of the vehicle sustained severe injuries and the husband of the claimant/respondent No. 1 died on the spot. The vehicle was also severely damaged. As a result, a criminal case i.e., Sialsuk P.S. Case No. 5/2011 dated 01.04.2011 under Section 279/336/42/304A was registered. The accident vehicle was insured with the appellant vide Insurance Acknowledgement letter dated 02.06.2010 and was valid from 02.06.2010 to 01.06.2011. The claimant/respondent No. 1 thus filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) against the appellant and the first owner and the second owner of the accident vehicle claiming compensation.

4. The respondent No. 2, as the first owner of the accident vehicle contested the claim by filing his written statement, wherein he stated that he sold the vehicle on 21.09.2010 to the respondent No. 3. He also stated that he had no liability in the case and that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant for the period w.e.f., 01.06.2010 to 01.06.2011 by paying a premium of Rs. 1900/-. In his written statement, he also annexed a sale deed to show that he had sold the vehicle to the respondent No. 3.

5. The appellant also contested the claim by filing written statement and denying that the Insurance policy/cover note was issued by the appellant, insuring the vehicle concerned in the name of the respondent No. 2. The appellant maintained that the acknowledgement letter submitted by the claimant/respondent No. 1, showing the receipt of a premium for insuring the accident vehicle was a fake and forged document. In support of such stand, the appellant examined two witnesses namely, Sh. Bitopan Gogoi, Legal Manager of the appellant Insurance Company and Sh. Zairemmawia Saiawi, an Agent of the Insurance Company.

6. The claimant/respondent No. 1 in support of her claim examined herself as the claimant witness No. 1 and the case I.O. as claimant witness No. 2. She deposed that her husband as Executive Engineer under the Power & Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram was drawing a salary of Rs. 44,309/- as on the date of the accident i.e., 01.04.2011. She further deposed that she got married to her late husband in the year 1985 and out of their wedlock, two sons and two daughters were born to them. In support of her claim, she exhibited the Last Pay Certificate of her husband, the Post Mortem Examination Report, Birth Certificate of the deceased, Registration Certificate of the accident vehicle, Insurance Acknowledgement receipt etc. amongst others. The Tribunal consequently disposed of the claim application by awarding compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1 as already stated hereinabove.

7. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. He submits that despite the examination of two defence