Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Nelson Sailo, J.
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Tlangngaihzuali W/o Lalthanzauva and ors. – Respondents
Review Pet. No. 2 of 2021 with Cont.Cas(C) No. 2 of 2021
Decided On : 03-05-2021
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 – Claim of compensation – Injury - Contempt petition has been tagged along with review petition pursuant to Order passed in the contempt petition which is to the effect that despite receiving notice sole respondent Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited failed to appear before the Court either in person or through a counsel. Since the review petition has been preferred by the Branch Manager of the said Insurance Company this Court therefore directed that the contempt petition be tagged along with the review petition –
Finding of the Court: Coming to the second ground taken in the review petition, it may be seen that according to the review petitioner tax deduction at source was not considered from the salary of the deceased by the Tribunal. It may be seen that the instant review petition is preferred against the judgment and order passed by this Court in MAC and not against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no scope for reviewing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in the claim application through the instant review petition - Materials on record also shows that the said ground has not been taken in the written statement filed by the review petitioner before the Tribunal. In MAC Appeal review petitioner at ground No. 2 had taken the stand that the learned Tribunal failed to deduct Income Tax while calculating the award. It may otherwise be seen that the Judgment & Order came to be passed by this Court with the agreement of the rival parties and particularly, the counsel for the review petitioner who had submitted that the grounds of appeal are twofold. The first ground was that Tribunal committed error in awarding towards conventional head ‘loss of expectation of life contrary to the Apex Court decision in second ground was that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure of the accident vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal could not have imposed the liability of paying compensation upon the Insurance Company. As such, the question of considering a deduction of income tax while calculating the award did not arise. It may also be noticed that the deceased was a in the 9th Assam Regiment and was earning a monthly salary His Last Pay Certificate exhibited as Exhibit C-20 was the basis on which the claimants had sought for the quantified compensation –
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. Zochhuana for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the review petition and for the petitioner in the contempt petition.
2. The contempt petition has been tagged alongwith review petition pursuant to the Order dated 20.04.2021 passed in the contempt petition which is to the effect that despite receiving notice, the sole respondent i.e., the Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited failed to appear before the Court either in person or through a counsel. Since the review petition has been preferred by the Branch Manager of the said Insurance Company, this Court therefore directed that the contempt petition be tagged alongwith the review petition.
3. Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that he has no instructions in so far as the contempt petition is concerned.
4. The review petition has been preferred by the review petitioner seeking review of the Judgment & Order dated 27.05.2020, passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 27/2019. Two grounds have been taken for preferring the review petition. They are:- (i) that 7% interest on the total awarded amount was given while interest on future prospect should not be given interest and (ii) that tax deduction at source was not considered from the salary of deceased Lalthanzauva by the Tribunal, while the said deduction has to be made.
5. Brief facts essential for disposal of the review petition is that the husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 i.e., Sh. Lalthanzauva, aged about 24 years met with an accident on 10.08.2014 at around 12:24 PM, while travelling in a Tata Sumo tourist vehicle bearing registration No. AS11-BC-3076, which was proceeding from Mizoram towards Guwahati. The accident happened when the vehicle reached Lad-Mukhla village (Meghalaya) in National Highway 44 where it collided with one Truck bearing registration No. NL01-K-1588 coming from the opposite direction. The Tata Sumo vehicle was driven by Sh. Laltlanzova, S/o L.V. Zuia of Thakthing Venghnuai. As a result of the accident, both the vehicles were badly damaged. There were 8 (eight) occupants in the Tata Sumo vehicle including the driver and out of which, 7 (seven) passengers including the driver received serious injuries on their person. One of the passengers Sh. Abishek Mahindra Bhimani expired on the spot. Sh. Laltlanzova succumbed to his injuries, while he was being taken to NEIGRIHMS, Shillong.
6. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 therefore filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl (Tribunal) claiming a sum of Rs. 1,01,73,016/-, as compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). The deceased was a Sepoy in the Indian Army and he joined the 9th Assam Regiment on 29.06.2007 and his Army No. was 04374720N and he was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 44,551/-. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the accident vehicle and that the accident vehicle was validly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. Therefore, the claimants contended that they were liable to be compensated for the death of the deceased person on whose salary they were solely dependent upon.
7. The claim application was thereafter disposed on contest by the Tribunal vide Judgment & Award dated 23.04.2019, by awarding the claimants a sum of Rs. 97,93,016/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application. The award was directed to be satisfied by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., which was arrayed as opposite party No. 3 in the claim application.
8. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company preferred MAC Appeal No. 27/2019 before this Court, which came to be disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 27.05.2020, by modifying the awarded amount to Rs. 96,93,016/- after deducting Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of expectation
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
