Point of Law: Accident claim - Compensation in case of death - In the death case, the multiplier should be considered on the basis of the age of the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr S.P.Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms S Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1/Insurance Company

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant against the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2012, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur in MAC Case No. 205/2007, whereby the claim petition of the claimant was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 04.06.2006, the husband of the claimant, Tegom Jerang (since deceased) was travelling in a vehicle bearing Registration No. AR-01-A/6722, as a passenger from Namsai to Naharlagun, by purchasing a ticket and he was allotted seat No. 1 of the said vehicle. On 05.06.2006, at about 5:30 am, in the morning hour, he was found lying on the roadside near Nilpur Tea Estate over NH-52, in an unconscious state with severe head injuries. On receipt of the information, the Police came to the spot and the injured was shifted to Biswanath Chariali Civil Hospital for treatment. As the condition of the injured was critical, he was referred to Kanaklata Civil Hospital at Tezpur. But subsequently, he was also referred to GMCH, but on the way to Guwahati, he succumbed to his injuries at Nagaon. The Post-Mortem examination of the deceased, Tegom Jerang was conducted at Tezpur Civil Hospital on 06.06.2006. In connection with the accident, one case was registered vide BNC PS Case No. 89/2006, under Section 302 IPC. At the relevant time of accident, the alleged vehicle was duly insured with National Insurance Company Limited.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal while deciding on the point of issue, as to whether the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the vehicle, which resulted into the death of the husband of the claimant, came to a finding that the deceased might have died due to any other reason, which is absolutely perverse. As such, the Judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that CW-2 and CW-3 had categorically stated in their deposition that they had seen falling something from the bus, which was coming in a very high speed and when they reached the spot, they found one tribal man lying on the road in a pool of blood. Thereafter, they went to Biswanath Chariali Police Station and informed Police about the accident.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the two other witnesses, i.e., CW4 and CW-5, who were the co-passengers in the bus, in which the deceased was travelling also deposed in their evidence that when they reached near Biswanath Chariali, it was dawn. After a few minutes of crossing Sadharu Shiva Mandir, the front side of the bus jumped into air, at which some of the passengers cautioned the driver. At the jump, they heard a thudding sound of falling something from the bus, but the conductor and handyman, who were in the cabin of the bus, did not come out of cabin to take stock of the matter if there was anything wrong. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence of PWs-2, 3, 4 and 5, it is crystal clear that the husband of the claimant, who was travelling in the offending bus, had fallen down due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, as a result of which he died. As such, the Judgment and Order of dismissal, passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the death of the deceased cannot be said to have arisen out of any accident, involving the vehicle. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered under Section 302 IPC, the penal provision of murder and the murder cannot be said to be an accident for granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also submitted that the claimant has filed the case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As s