IMPORTANT POINT
The claimant must establish negligence for a successful claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, and the Tribunal's reliance on insufficient evidence can lead to erroneous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. In this appeal, under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, the appellant, Samina Kalita has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Judgment and Award dated 23.03.2020, passed by the learned Member, M.A.C.T., Goalpara, in M.A.C. Case No. 269/2017.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Award dated 23.03.2020, the learned Member, M.A.C.T., Goalpara has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- only, being the compensation (no fault liability) on account of death of the father of the appellant, in a motor vehicle accident.

Background Facts:-

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein below:-

“On 10.11.2014, at about 5:20 pm, Bhabataran Kalita, the father of the appellant, was travelling in a TATA Nano vehicle, driven by one Mahendra Kalita (owner/driver of the vehicle) bearing registration No. AS-18-B-4173, from Dudhnoi to Goalpara. On the way, at Solmari, the vehicle met with an accident at NH 37, as one cow suddenly ran towards the road. As a result of the accident, Bhabataran Kalita sustained severe injuries on the backside of his head and he was taken to Solace Hospital, Goalpara and from there, he was referred to GNRC, Guwahati and during the course of treatment, after 5 days of the accident, on 15.11.2014, Bhabataran Kalita succumbed in his injuries at GNRC, Guwahati.

Thereafter, the present appellant had preferred one claim petition before the learned Member, M.A.C.T., Goalpara, claiming compensation on account of death of her father.

Thereafter, the learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties had disposed of the said claim petition, vide impugned judgment and award, directed the respondent No. 1, the National Insurance Company Limited, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- only, being no fault liability, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realization.”

Grounds:-

5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present appellant has preferred the present appeal, under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 23.03.2020, on the following grounds :-

(I) That, the learned counsel for the claimant had conducted mistakenly by bringing the A.S.I. (P.W. No.2) to the witness box on the plea that the driver had committed no fault in driving the vehicle and that he had failed to bring on record the actual plea that the said car was driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver as a result of which the father of the claimant had sustained injury and ultimately suffered demise.

(II) That, there was clear and specific plea of the claimant that her father was expired due to the accident caused by Opp. party No.3 i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle because of his rash & negligent driving of the vehicle AS 18 B-4173 (Tata Nano). But, the learned Tribunal had wrongly held that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the said opposite party No.3.

(III) That, the Learned Member erred in law and the facts on determining the quantum of compensation on correct Principle/standard and the same is based on speculation only.

(IV) That, the evidence on record was misread by the learned Tribunal below and came to a perverse finding being based on no evidence or against the evidence on record.

(V) That, it is well settled that the claimant need not to establish her case beyond doubt that there was any negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Hence the learned Member ought not to discard this legal aspect of the case.

(VI) That, the deceased had sustained injuries sustained due to blunt force impact, as is evident from the PM report (Ext.-6) the learned member had failed to consider the said relevant aspect.

(VII) That, in view of clear and specific plea in respect of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver that caused the death of t