IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, KOHIMA BENCH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Sangita Sonowal & Ors. - Respondents
MACApp. No. 7 of 2021
Decided On : 18-05-2023
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173, 166 read with Section 140 - Companies Act, 1956 - Motor Vehicles - Accident - Compensation - Appellant is a body corporate and registered under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at 3 Middleton Street, Post Box and it carries various insurance businesses all over India under various Regional Office including North East Regional Office situated and one of its Divisional Office - One (since deceased), of whom present respondents are legal representatives, was a driver by profession and at about 8:30 p.m., under jurisdiction of outpost in district , met with an accident while he was driving a tractor bearing registration No. - It is also stated that said accident occurred due to mechanical failure in tractor, as a result of which sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to his injuries on way to hospital - Whether deceased who was the driver of ill-fated tractor which was involved in accident may be regarded as a third party or not – Held, position of law may not be disputed as apparently owner may not be regarded as a third party viz-a-viz contract of insurance, if there was such a contract between him and Insurance Company even if he was driver himself and sustained injuries - In MAC Case No. , testimony of DW-1, who was owner of the ill-fated vehicle, shows that he was negligent in not informing driver of ill-fated vehicle, (since deceased) about defective condition of breaks of said vehicle, neither he did anything to rectify or repair those breaks, even after knowing about its defective condition, before allowing said vehicle to be used by deceased - Finding of learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, regarding negligence on part of owner of ill-fated vehicle, appears to be based on materials available on record which does not justify any interference by Appellate Court - Instant appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
Heard Mr. Imti Imsong, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.N. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. Z. Kulnu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.
2. This Motor Accident Claims Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, namely, National Insurance Company Limited, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kohima in MAC Case No. 1/2017, whereby the present appellant was directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.21,36,000/-(Rupees Twenty One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand) to the claimants, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 01.03.2017 until realization.
3. The facts relevant for adjudication for this appeal, in brief, are as follows:-
(ii) One Mohendra Gogoi (since deceased), of whom the present respondents are the legal representatives, was a driver by profession and on 25.10.2015, at about 8:30 p.m., at Dhulpata Gaon under the jurisdiction of Sonari Chapori outpost in the district of Lakhimpur, Assam, met with an accident while he was driving a tractor bearing registration No. AS-22-C-3247. It is also stated that the said accident occurred due to mechanical failure in the tractor, as a result of which Mohendra Gogoi sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital.
(iii) The present respondent No. 1, being wife of the late Mohendra Gogoi, respondent No. 2 being son of late Mohendra Gogoi and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 being parents of late Mohendra Gogoi filed a Motor Accident Claims case under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of late Mohendra Gogoi in the aforementioned vehicular accident. The said case was registered as MAC Case No. 1/2017 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kohima.
(iv) The present appellant, being the insurer of the tractor bearing Registration No. AS-22C-3247, which was involved in the accident, was also impleaded as one of the respondents in the Motor Accident Claims case filed by the present respondents No. 1 to 4 (as claimants). Though, the present appellant engaged its counsel in the MAC Case No. 1/2017 however, it failed to file written statement in the said claim case and learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kohima proceeded with the case without the written statement of the present appellant. After completion of the inquiry, learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kohima awarded a compensation amount of Rs.21,36,000/-(Rupees Twenty One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand) to the claimants (present respondents No. 1 to 4) and the present appellant was directed to pay the said amount along with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 01.03.2017 till realization. The said judgment and award dated 20.12.2019 has been impugned in the present MAC Appeal.
4. Mr. Imti Imsong, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the main ground on which the appellant has preferred this instant appeal is that in the instant case a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not maintainable in as much as the deceased was the driver of the vehicle which was involved in the accident and as such he may not be treated as a third party and on that ground only the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the claimants have failed to prove any neg
The insurance company remains liable for compensation claims even after the death of the insured, as per Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provided the claim arises from an event covered u....
Under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot raise the defense of negligence against claimants, the deceased cannot be treated as a third party if they are related to the vehicle's....
Point of law: liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have m....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that under the M.V. Act, the liability of the insurance company depends on the interpretation of the provisions regarding third-party claims, an....
A borrower of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner, disqualifying their legal heirs from claiming compensation against the insurance company.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.