Point of Law: Motor Accident - Compensation - Accident took place because of his own rash and negligent driving of deceased person and being victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving his relative cannot maintain a petition under Section 166 of MV Act.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Judgment and award, dated 17.06.2019, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Papum pare, Yuipa, in MACT Case No. 01/2017(YPA), is impugned in this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Naharlagun.

2. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned judgment, the learned Member, MACT, Yupia has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only, with interest @ 9% (nine) p.a. from the date of filing the claim-petition i.e. 9th Jan 2017, till realisation of the same. The learned Court below further directed the appellant to pay the awarded amount within a period of 2(two) months from the date of judgment, failing which the same will carry interest @ 12%.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the MAC Case No. 01/2017, before the learned Member, MACT, Yupia is adumbrated herein-below:

“On 25.05.2013, one Dwarka Prasad Lakhotia (since deceased) was proceeding from Naharlagun to Guwahati in a Private I10 Magna Car belonging to his wife, namely, Smt. Sunita Devi Lakhotia, bearing Registration No. AR-01-D-5519.Onhis way, he met with an accident at Rangagarah on National Highway-37, under Samaguri Police Station of Nagaon District, Assam. After the accident, he was shifted to BP Civil Hospital, Nagaon, Assam. But, he succumbed to the injuries on his way to the hospital. The car was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the policy was enforced at the time of accident. Thereafter, the appellant conducted an enquiry and verification of the damaged car and paid a sum of Rs. 2,97,029/- being the damaged claim amount, as per policy terms and condition. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition in the Court of learned Member, MACT, Yupia, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,31,50,000/- (rupees one crore thirty one lakhs fifty thousand) only from the appellant company. The appellant contested the case by filing a written statement and examined the witnesses and denied its liabilities in respect of the aforesaid MACT case. But after hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award on 17.06.2015, directing the appellant company to make payment of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% till full and final payment of the awarded amount.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal on the ground that:-

(1) The learned Tribunal has committed manifest error in fact as well as in law while passing the impugned judgment and award dated 17.06.2019 and the claimant has failed to submit all the essential documents in support of the claim such as:-

(i) Income certificate of the injured person.

(ii) Form 54.

(iii) Age prove certificate of the deceased.

(iv) Proper medical treatment vouchers and ex-ray plate etc.

(v) Charge-sheet of the Criminal case.

(2) The learned Tribunal has misconception over the points of law as well as misunderstood the factual matrix of the claim case and that the deceased himself was driving the offending vehicle and met with an accident and he cannot be considered as a third party and he was not a registered owner of the offending vehicle and as such, the petition under Section 166 of the MV Act 1988 is not maintainable, and consequently, the impugned judgment and award is not maintainable in the eye of law

(3) Had the deceased been registered owner of the offending vehicle then his wife or relative could claim a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- only under the terms and condition of the Insurance company which was enforced at the time of material time of accident. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ashalata Bhowmik and Others, (2018) 9 SCC 801, the judgment is not maintainable. The accident took place because of his own rash and negligent driving of the deceased person and being the victim of his own action of rash