Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 255
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Tapashi Roy W/o Lt. Birendra Chandra Roy And 5 Ors - Respondent
MACApp. 176/2020
Decided On : 18-02-2025
For the Petitioner: MR S DUTTA, MR S DUTTA,MR. S DUTTA
For the Respondents: Mr. S.C. Biswas, Mr. M. Dutta, Ms. M. Saikia, Mr. A.J. Saikia
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance companies may be held liable for compensation unless a breach of policy terms is established, necessitating a reassessment of liability in cases of contributory negligence.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Liability of Insurance Company - The appeals arise from judgments dated 23.12.2019 concerning a single accident involving a Bolero Vehicle and a Truck. The Appellant Insurance Company contended that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes, violating insurance terms, and sought to share liability based on contributory negligence. (Paras 3 , 12 , 14 )
(B) Insurance Liability - The court found no fault on the part of the Truck driver and ruled that the Appellant Insurance Company must satisfy the judgments while allowing the Tribunal to reassess liability. (Paras 17 , 19 )
Facts of the case:
The Bolero Vehicle collided with a parked Truck, resulting in one fatality and multiple injuries. The claimants filed separate MAC cases for compensation. (Paras 5 , 12 )
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal awarded compensation to claimants in four cases, which the court upheld, but directed a reassessment of liability concerning the Appellant Insurance Company. (Paras 18 , 19 )
Issues: The main issues were whether the Appellant Insurance Company should bear full liability and whether contributory negligence applied. (Paras 3 , 14 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Appellant Insurance Company must satisfy the awards but allowed for a reassessment of liability regarding the breach of insurance terms. (Paras 17 , 19 )
Result: Appeals disposed of with directions for reassessment of liability.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the batch of appeals taken up for consideration. Mr. S. C. Biswas, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in MAC App./176/2020. Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4 in MAC App./176/2020; respondent No. 2 in MAC App./259/2020; respondent No. 2 in MAC App./262/2020 and respondent No. 2 in MAC App./288/2020. Ms. M. Saikia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 6 in MAC App./176/2020. Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4 in MAC App./262/2020.
2. All the 4 (four) appeals are taken up together for adjudication, taking into account that all these appeals are in relation to a single accident wherein 4 (four) separate claim proceedings were filed. The 4(four) appeals arises out of separate judgments and awards dated 23.12.2019 in MAC Case No. 19/2015, MAC Case No. 79/2015, MAC Case No. 80/2015 and MAC Case No. 81/2015.
3. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged that the judgment and award which are impugned in the instant batch of 4 (four) appeals are required to be interfered with primarily on two grounds. The said grounds are:
(i). The vehicle in question was a private vehicle which was used for a commercial purpose and further there were more occupants than permitted and as such, as there was a violation to the terms of the insurance by the owner, for which, the learned Tribunal erred in law and facts in saddling the entire liability upon the Appellant Insurance Company.
(ii). The vehicle that is the Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01- BD-4444 was the vehicle registered with the appellant company. The said vehicle dashed against the truck bearing registration No. AS-11-AC-4160. The said truck was standing on the left side of the road wherein the truck could not have been parked. Under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought to have proportionately shared the liability by applying the principles of contributory negligence.
4. To ascertain, as to whether, the two grounds of objections so submitted by the Appellant Insurance Company merits, this Court finds it relevant to briefly take note of the facts leading to filing of the instant appeals.
5. The claimants in MAC Case No. 81/2015, MAC Case No. 79/2015 and MAC Case No. 80/2015 along with one Birendra Chandra Roy were travelling in a Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BD-4444 on 03.11.2014. The said Bolero Vehicle dashed against a standing truck bearing Registration No. AS-11- AC-4160 in a village named Gumrah under Katigorah Police Station in Cachar district. The said Birendra Chandra Roy succumbed to his injuries in the said accident whereas the claimants in MAC Case No. 79/2015, MAC Case No. 80/2015 and MAC Case No. 81/2015 suffered injuries. Pursuant thereto, these 4 (four) MAC claim proceedings were initiated. On the death of Late Birendra Chandra Roy, his wife and his children were the claimants in MAC Case No. 19/2015. The other persons who were injured filed MAC Case Nos. 79/2015, 80/2015 and 81/2015. All these proceedings were instituted before the Court of the learned District Judge-cum-Member, M.A.C.T., Karimganj at Karimganj (now Sribhumi) (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Tribunal”). Pursuant to the filing of the claim proceedings, notices were issued to the owners of the Bolero Vehicle and the Truck as well as the respective Insurance Companies in respect to the Bolero Vehicle and the Truck. It is relevant to take note of that the Appellant Insurance Company is the insurer of the Bolero Vehicle in question whereas Reliance India General Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the Truck in question.
6. The Appellant Insurance Company filed their written statements in
