IMPORTANT POINT
A claimant who is a permissive user of a vehicle cannot maintain a compensation claim against the owner or insurer under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mrs. S. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.K. Nath, the learned counsel for the respondent side.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company impugning the judgment and award dated 21.12.2016, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 82/2014.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 12.12.2013, at about 9:50 P.M., the claimant was riding a Motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-05-E/3935 from Tapan Nagar, Golaghat towards Islampatty, and while he reached near No.1 Railway Gate, an unknown vehicle, which was coming from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, and in order to escape from the imminent accident from the said unknown vehicle, he steered his Motorcycle towards the left- hand side of the road. In that process, the Motorcycle suddenly dashed against the back side of a stationary vehicle which was parked at the extreme left hand side of the road. As a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his person. After the accident, he was taken to K.K. Civil Hospital, Golaghat and thereafter, he was referred to Guwahati. Accordingly, he was taken to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati and treated there as indoor patient for six days from 14.12.2013 to 20.12.2013. It has been pleaded that the claimant is an experienced driver and he possessed a valid driving licence vide No. 98273/NTV/NW/2011, and it was valid upto 09.01.2027.

4. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, Sri Bikash Ghosh had filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat, seeking compensation on account of injury sustained by him in the aforesaid motor vehicular accident.

5. The Insurance Company, as well as the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, contested the claim case by filing a written statement.

6. Upon pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat framed the following issues:-

i. Whether on 12.12.2013, at about 9’50 P.M., near No.1 Railway Gate, Golaghat under Golaghat Police Station, the injured/claimant drove the Motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-05-E/3935, and caused the accident, and thereby, caused injuries on his person?

ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation on account of injuries sustained by him as a result of the accident?

iii. If so, what would be the quantum of compensation and payable by whom?

7. After completion of the inquiry, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and directed the Insurance Company, i.e., The National Insurance Company Limited (the appellant) to pay an amount of Rs. 81,544(Rupees Eighty-one Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four) only to the claimant, along with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

8. Though in the memo of appeal, several grounds are taken by the appellant for assailing the impugned judgment. However, during hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has assailed mainly the ground of maintainability of the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant/respondent No. 1, was driving the motorcycle owned by the respondent No. 2, however, the claimant has failed to plead and prove his status while riding the offending motorcycle. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is the duty of the claimant to prove and establish as to what was his status while he was riding the offending vehicle.

10. She has further submitted that as no FIR was lodged in this case, it can be presumed that the claimant was riding the vehicle with the consent of the owner, and in such a case,