Point of Law : Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation even for gratuitous passenger considering circumstances of this case under the “Doctrine of Pay and Recover” from the driver and owner of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Heard Mr. S. Koyang, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Boje, learned counsel representing the respondent No.3.

2. This is an application filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by challenging legality and validity of the Award dated 21.11.2022, passed by the Court of learned Member Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (in short “MACT”), Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, whereby, the claim application of the appellant has been arbitrarily dismissed.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present application is that;

3.1. On 12.07.2009, a Truck bearing a registration No.AS-01AC-4082 belonging to one Mr. Hemanta Kumar Das/respondent No.1 driven by Md. Inush Ali/respondent No.2 loaded with some electric poles was going towards Raga. The present appellant’s elder brother, Lt. Rakhe Kanio boarded in the Truck at Yatap village and was seating in the cabin, while, going down the slope of the road near Repari village, the truck ran up the wall of the hill of the road on right hand side and fell down on the left side of the road causing injury to the deceased, who died on the way to the District Hospital, Ziro. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 12.07.2009 in the Police Station, Ziro against the driver of the Truck, which was registered as Ziro P.S. Case No. 58/2009, registered under Section 279/304(A) of IPC. Accordingly, the Police has investigated the case and submitted its final report before the learned Trial Court. And, as per the said report, the cause of accident was due to tyre burst, however, it was due to brake fail as per evidence given by the CW-2 and CW-3.

3.2. The vehicle was duly insured under Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Vide Insurance Policy No.OG-10-9995-1803-00018051, which was valid from 02.06.2009 to 01.06.2010 mid night, thus, at the time of the accident the insurance policy was valid. Thereafter, the appellant filed the claim petition against the respondents before the Court of learned MACT, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, claiming the compensation to the tune of Rs.6,82,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs Eighty-two thousand) only for death of Lt. Rakhe Kanio. Later, the claim amount was modified for Rs.40,65,000/-(Rupees Forty lakhs sixty-five thousand) only, which was based on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company LTD. Vs. Praynay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. After the death of the claimant/Lt. Rakhe Teri, on 25.06.2020 his son Shri Rakhe Tallar/present appellant, substituted his father as a claimant.

3.3. The respondent No.3, the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd. filed written statements but the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed the same. The appellant’s side adduced 4 witnesses during the course of proceedings of the case and the respondent No.3 had adduced 1 witness. The Truck owner and Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has not contested the case. After conclusion of the evidence the Court of learned MACT, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and dismissed the petition considering it to be devoid of merit.

4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 21.11.2022, passed by the Court of learned MACT, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, the appellant preferred this instant appeal on the following grounds: -

4.1. The learned MACT, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, has committed serious error in law as well as in facts while passing the impugned award dated 21.11.2022, which has resulted into failure of justice and also suffered from manifest illegality, thus, it is liable to be set aside and quashed.

4.2. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the factual aspects of the case and passed the impugned award in a most casual manner without proper adjudication of the materials on records for which the award dated 21.11.2022 is not at all maintainable. The said Court also failed to app