The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to afford an opportunity to the Opposite Party/Parties to appear and present their case or rebut the claim made before the Tribunal, even in a claim under Section 163 A of the MV Act.

JUDGMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli for the respondent No. 1/claimant. None appears for the respondent No. 2 despite service.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 30.05.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), Aizawl in MACT Case No. 69 of 2017 whereby, the respondent No. 1/claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- along with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim application as compensation on account of the death of her minor daughter in a motor accident.

3. Facts of the case in brief is that the daughter of the respondent No. 1/claimant, who was aged 3 (three) years was ran over by one XUV 500 vehicle B/R No. MZ-01-K-0411 on 29.08.2017 at about 10:00 a.m. The vehicle was driven by the respondent No. 2 in the present appeal and OP-1 before the Tribunal. As a result, the minor child succumbed to her injuries on the spot. The place of the accident was between Chaltlang Dawrkawn and Tourist Lodge and in fact, just in front of the residence gate of the respondent No. 1/claimant. As a result, the respondent No. 1/claimant filed a claim application before the Tribunal, which was registered as MACT Case No. 69/2017 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,48,000/- from the Opposite Parties. OP-1 is the driver of the accident vehicle while OP-2 is the instant appellant. The respondent No. 1/claimant in order to substantiate her claim annexed the Birth Certificate of her deceased daughter, Police report, Accident Inspection report, Registration Certificate of the accident vehicle, Insurance Certificate of the accident vehicle, Driving License of the respondent No. 2, the Postmortem Examination report as well as the Death Certificate. These documents were also exhibited by the respondent No. 1/claimant and she examined herself as the sole claimant witness before the Tribunal.

4. The respondent No. 2/OP-1 filed his written statement against the claim application before the Tribunal stating that his vehicle was duly insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited (the appellant herein) and therefore, if there was any liability to pay compensation, such liability would rest upon the Insurance Company. The Tribunal thereafter, vide its Judgment & Award disposed of the claim application by awarding compensation to the respondent No. 1/claimant in the manner as already stated herein above.

5. Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal did not issue any notice to the appellant Insurance Company and therefore, the Insurance Company was not aware about the pendency of the claim application. Having not received any notice, the Insurance Company was not in a position to file any written statement against the claim application. The respondent No. 1/claimant examined herself as the sole claimant witness but since the appellant Insurance Company was not given any notice, the claimant's witness could not be cross examined. He therefore submits that on this ground alone, the impugned Judgment & Award of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same may be set aside.

6. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel on the other hand submits that the claim was made by the respondent No. 1/claimant under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, in view of the recent Notification issued by the Government of India fixing the quantum of compensation, which can be awarded in case of injury or in case of fatal accident, the impugned Judgment & Award may be maintained since the outcome would be the same even if the matter is remanded back or opportunity is given to the appellant Insurance Company.

7. I have heard the submission made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the records requisitioned from the Tribunal.

8. A perusal of the records goes t