Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 108
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S. Hukato Swu, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Hamida Begum & Ors. - Respondent
MACApp. 272/2016
Decided On : 11-02-2020
Ms.C Mozumdar, for the Appellant; Mr.B Chakravartyr- 1-3, for the Respondent
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 –Rash and Negligent Driving, Accident, Death – Learned counsel, appearing for the appellants have contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as in facts for not considering the evidence adduced by the Doctors which clearly shows that cancer cannot be the result of an injury and death was due to brain tumor –All the medicines that were purchased by the claimant was related to cancer treatments and not for the injury – She has further argued that the total expenditure on the injury that was sustained by the victim is only a sum of Rs. 1,200/- She has also contended that the claimant should satisfy that the cancer was pre-existing the injury or accident which may lead to the finding that the death has been accelerated by the injury due to accident causing the death –Held, The M.V. Act is indeed a social beneficial legislation to assist the needy and who are victimized by rash and negligent driving of the offenders –However, it is to be kept in mind that extremely remote liabilities cannot be brought within the meaning of M.V. Act to opportune every claimant who does not have basis –With the above discussions and findings, the order is set aside – Considering the facts of the matter whatever has been paid to the claimant shall not be recovered –The respondents shall pay an amount of Rs. 81,728/- within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order and 6% interest shall be added from the date of filing till realization – The appellant had deposited Rs. 10,61,722/- on the direction of the Court –The awarded amount of Rs. 81,728/- may be deducted from the said deposit and the remaining amount may be allowed to be withdrawn by the appellants –With the above facts, the legal requirement of casual relationship is missing in the instant case –In the result, it will not be appropriate to agree with the findings of the learned Tribunal and the same calls for interference –Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) challenging the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar, Assam dated 18.05.2016. The facts stated in brief is that on 17.01.2007, deceased Saukat Ali Barbhuiya, 45 years old transport driver of Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB), while returning from Chaurangi Bazar, at Katogorah met with an accident on National Highway-44, JB road. When he reached Katirail Garage, all of a sudden Maxi-Cab which was going from Chaurangi Bazar hit the back side of the victim. As a result, the victim sustained multiple injuries in the head, chest and other parts of the body. After alarming the people nearby, the injured was shifted to Kalain CHC wherefrom he was referred to SMCH, Silchar. However, he was again shifted to Advance Neuro Science Hospital, Kahilipara road, Guwahati for clotting of blood inside the head and for undergoing further treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to B. Borooah Cancer Institute/Silchar Medical College & Hospital for course of radiotherapy. Thereon, he was shifted to SMCH and Cachar Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Silchar for undergoing treatment. The treatment continued, however, he died on 23.08.2007. Under the above facts, the dependents of the claimant filed the claim petition against opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. During the trial, the offending vehicle, Tata Sumo, bearing Registration No. AS-11-B-2466 was found to be responsible for the cause of the accident wherein, the deceased Saukat Ali Barbhuiya was grievously injured. The learned Tribunal, on appreciating the evidences came to the conclusion that the deceased should be compensated because there was a casual connection even though not immediate between the accident and the eventual death of the deceased. The victim died after lapse of about 7 (seven) months of the occurrence of the accident. Relying on the judgment passed by our own High Court, the learned Tribunal cited the case of Union of India & Another vs. Bholi Rai, reported in 2012 (3) TAC 546 (Gau) has come to the conclusion that the instant case being similarly situated, the victims cannot be denied of the compensation. He, further ruled that in the case of Bholi Rai (supra), the victim after 3 (three) years of the occurrence of the accident which happened on 17.11.1998 and ultimately died in the year, 2001. In the Death Certificate, the cause of death was shown as 'Diabetic CRF with Peripheral failure'. But the High Court held that once the claimant/respondent is able to create a high degree of probability on the basis of battery of witnesses that after the deceased met with the accident, he was under prolonged medical treatment and had never resumed duty due to his inability to produce Medical Certificate, the onus of proving that he died due to the combined effect of the injuries sustained by him in the said vehicular accident and his uncontrolled blood sugar, shifts to the appellant. Further, reliance was placed in the case of Bimla Vevi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2009 ACJ 1725 and Shivaji Dayanu Patil vs. Vatschala Uttam More, reported in 1991 ACJ 777 , wherein it was held by the Apex Court that the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was merely to establish the case on the stand of preponderance of probability because the standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt cannot be applied. With the above decision to support the claim of the appellant, the learned Tribunal computed a compensation of Rs. 21,23,444/- to be paid to the claimants by the respondents, i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., who insured the Policy No. 2007/647 in favour of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Tribunal, the appeal petition is before this Court for disposal.
3. The appeal petition
