Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 96
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J
The United India Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sarwar Khan @Abdul Sarwar Khan, S/o-jalil Khan - Respondent
MAC APPNo. 233/2020
Decided On : 25-02-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate
For Respondent(s):Mr. K.K. Dutta, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Discrepancies in claimant's identity do not invalidate the claim for compensation if sufficient evidence supports the injuries sustained and damages assessed.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation due to motor vehicle accident - Compensation of Rs. 7,12,486/- awarded by the Tribunal with 7.5% interest from the date of filing - Appellant/Insurance Company challenged the award citing discrepancies in claimant's identity and documents. (Paras 3 , 4 , 6 , 10 , 12 , 26 )
(B) Evidence - Credibility of documents - The Tribunal found sufficient evidence to support the claim despite discrepancies in claimant's name and injuries sustained. (Paras 22 , 24 , 25 )
(C) Assessment of damages - Tribunal's assessment of loss of income and compensation for pain and suffering was upheld as reasonable. (Paras 28 , 30 )
Facts of the case:
The claimant sustained grievous injuries in a motorcycle accident due to the negligence of the driver. The claim was filed for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (Paras 5 , 26 )
Findings of Court:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal correctly assessed the compensation based on the evidence and documents presented. (Paras 26 , 30 )
Issues: Whether discrepancies in the claimant's identity and documents justify denying compensation; whether the compensation awarded was adequate. (Paras 6 , 28 )
Ratio Decidendi: The discrepancies in the claimant's name do not undermine the evidence supporting the claim, and the assessment of damages was deemed appropriate by the Tribunal. (Paras 23 , 30 )
Result: Both appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 233/2020, as well as the learned counsel for the respondents in MAC Appeal No. 45/2021. Also heard Mr. K.K. Dutta, the learned counsel for the respondents in MAC Appeal No. 233/2020, as well as the learned counsel for the appellants in MAC Appeal No. 45/2021.
2. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of two MAC Appeals, namely, MAC Appeal No. 233/2020, as well as MAC Appeal No. 45/2021, as both the appeals are directed against a common judgment, i.e., the judgment and award dated 18.06.2020, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 939/2018.
3. By the impugned judgment and award, the claimants, i.e., the appellants of MAC Appeal No. 45/2021, as well as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of MAC Appeal No. 233/2020, were awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 7,12,486/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Four Hundred Eighty Six only) along with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.
4. The MAC Appeal No. 45/2021, has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved with the quantum of the compensation, wherein, a prayer for enhancement of the quantum of the compensation has been made.Whereas, the MAC Appeal No. 233/2020 has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, praying for setting aside of the impugned judgment and award.
5. The facts relevant for consideration of both the above-mentioned appeals are that:-
i. On 16.04.2018, at about 5:45 PM, when the claimant No. 1 was proceeding from Kamalpur towards Baihata Chariali on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BF-5374 as a pillion rider, when the motorcycle reached near Daibya Sakti parking on National Highway No. 31, the said motorcycle met with an accident owing to rash and negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. As a result of the said accident, the claimant No.1 sustained grievous injuries and which also caused compound fracture of both bones of right leg as well as fracture on ribs.
ii. It is pertinent to mention herein that in this regard a police case was also registered as Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 100/2018 under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code. The motorcycle involved in the incident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, i.e., the appellant of MAC Appeal No. 233/2020.
iii. Thereafter, the claimant No.1 Abdul Sarwar Khan @ Sarwar Khan and his wife Nazma Begum filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of injury sustained by the claimant No.1 in the motor vehicle accident.
iv. After the filing of the aforesaid case, notices were duly served to all the opposite parties, including the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the owner and driver of the offending motorcycle, who did not appear before the Tribunal and contest the case. Accordingly, the claim case proceeded ex-parte against the owner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement.
v. In support of their claim, the claimants examined 1(one) PW, i.e., the claimant No. 1 himself. Though the respondent/ insurance company also adduced the evidence of 1(one) DW, namely, Rabin Kr. Das, who was the Assistant Manager from the regional office of the appellant/insurance company, however, as the said witness did not appear for his cross-examination, hence, the evidence (Examination-in-Chief) of DW-1 was expunged.
vi. Ultimately, after considering the materials on record and after hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, a compensation amount of Rs. 7,12,486/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Four Hundred Eighty Six only), along with an interest @ 7.5 % p
