Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AIZAWL BENCH)
Nelson Sailo, J.
Vanlalhriata, F/o C Lalhlupuia (l) - Appellant
Versus
Malsawmtluanga Chawngthu - Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal Of Compensation Appeal No. 33 of 2017
Decided On : 16-10-2020
C. Lalramzauva, Advocate, A.R. Malhotra, Advocate, Emily L Chhangte, Advocate, H. Zodinsanga, Advocate, Jonathan L Sailo, Advocate, Lalremtluanga, Advocate, Sheila L Hnialum, Advocate, Roshan Subedi, Advocate, H. Kristazi, Advocate, V. Vanlalhruaia, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation under Section 163 A of the MV Act for the death of a pillion rider in a motor vehicular accident, and the correct interpretation of insurance coverage for such claims.
Headnote:
MV Act - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Section 163 A - [MV Act, 1988, Section 163 A] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 163 A of the MV Act and the insurance coverage for pillion riders. It highlighted the error in the Tribunal's judgment regarding the coverage of the pillion rider under the insurance policy and emphasized the entitlement to compensation under the amended Second Schedule of the MV Act. The court also referred to the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sinitha And Others, (2012) 2 SCC 356 to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a claim under Section 163 A of the MV Act for compensation for the death of his son in a motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the pillion rider was not covered by the insurance policy of the motor cycle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in its judgment by misinterpreting the claim as a fault-based claim and by incorrectly assessing the insurance coverage for the pillion rider. It held that the appellant was entitled to compensation under the amended Second Schedule of the MV Act.
Issues: Interpretation of insurance coverage for pillion riders under Section 163 A of the MV Act, applicability of the amended Second Schedule for compensation, and the error in the Tribunal's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the correct interpretation of the insurance policy, the entitlement to compensation under the amended Second Schedule, and the lack of evidence from the Insurance Company to dispute the claim.
Final Decision: The appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs to be paid by the Insurance Companies with whom the motor cycle and the Truck were registered, along with additional interest as per the Notification dated 22.05.2018. The appeal was allowed, and the amount was directed to be deposited before the Tribunal for disbursement to the appellant.
JUDGMENT
Nelson Sailo, J. - Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. Also heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Standing counsel Oriental Insurance Company appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
2. Be it stated herein that the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 were served notice by way of Dasti, while the respondent No. 2 was served notice in a substituted manner by newspaper publication. The notices served upon them have been filed by the appellant by way of an affidavit. As such, notice on the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are complete.
3. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/claimant against the Judgment & Award dated 24.09.2015 passed by the Member cum Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), Aizawl in MACT Case No. 16/2013 dismissing the claim of the appellant, which was filed under Section 163 A of the MV Act, 1988 (MV Act).
4. According to the appellant, his son C. Lalhlupuia, aged 21 years met with an a motor vehicular accident on 08.03.2011 at Vaivakawn Zohnuai, Aizawl at around 6:30 p.m. while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a Karizma Bike bearing Registration No. MZ 01 F/7496 belonging to the respondent No. 1. As the Bike was proceeding towards Aizawl, it dashed with one Maruti 800 (Taxi) bearing Registration No. MZ 01 C/9707 belonging to the respondent No. 5 and driven by one Sh. Lalthangliana, which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result, the son of the appellant fell down from the moving Bike and he was run over by a moving Truck bearing Registration No. JK 02 U 0577 belonging to the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 4 Insurance Company. As for the Bike in which the son of the appellant was travelling, the same was insured with the respondent No. 3 under Policy No. 35100731106201064531 with a validity from 13.09.2010 to 12.09.2011. The Truck was insured with the respondent No. 4 under Policy No. 262102/31/2011/1264 with a validity from 16.07.2010 to 15.07.2011. It may be noted that the date of accident was 08.03.2011 and it was during the validity of both the above insurance policies. As a result of the accident, the son of the appellant succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Thus, the appellant filed a claim application before the Tribunal on 12.02.2013 under Section 163 A of the MV Act, claiming compensation for the death of his son.
5. According to the appellant, his son was working as a junior carpenter and was having a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as the CW-1 and also the employer of the deceased as CW-2. The respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5, who were arrayed as OP-1, 3, 4 & 5 before the Tribunal filed their respective written statements opposing the claim of the appellant. They however did not lead any evidence by examining witness/witnesses of their own. After the appellant led his evidence, the Tribunal heard the rival parties and thereafter passed the impugned judgment & award, dismissing the claim on the ground that the pillion rider of the motor cycle was not covered by the insurance policy of the Insurance Company, with whom the motor cycle was insured. The appellant thus being aggrieved has filed the instant appeal.
6. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in passing the judgment & award inasmuch as, it held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Bike rider and he was under the influence of liquor and as a result of which, a Police case was also registered. Therefore, if compensation was to be given to the claimant, the insurer of the Bike would be liable. But however, as the Insurance policy did not cover the pillion rider, no compensation was payable. The learned counsel therefore submits that the learned Tribunal proceeded with the case as if it was a claim filed
