IMPORTANT POINT
A party should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel; courts can remand cases for retrial to allow additional evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(BUDI HABUNG, J.)

Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. R. Baishya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 30.08.2014, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur, Tezpur in MAC case no. 383 /2008.

3. The case leading to the filing of this appeal is that the husband of the respondent no. 1/claimant, Mojibur Rahman met with a vehicular accident on 17.08.2008, following which he succumbed to his injuries on 19.08.2008 at Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur. The respondent no. 1/Claimant filed the claim application No. MAC case no. 383/2008, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act) before the learned Member, MACT, Sonitpur, Tezpur, seeking a total compensation amount of Rs. 7,69,000/-. The claimant has impleaded the owner, the driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle as opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively there.

4. The respondent/opposite party including the appellant contested the case by filing written statements. The opposite party No. 3, Insurance Company in its written statement contended that the offending vehicle had no valid road permit at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant had a valid road permit at the time accident and the same was handed over to his Advocate for filing it before the learned Tribunal. However, the same was not placed and exhibited before the learned Tribunal during the trial of the case.

5. As a result, the learned Member, MACT, Tezpur after hearing the parties held that the vehicle involved in the accident did not have valid road permit at the time of accident. Accordingly, in view of the above findings, the learned Tribunal by its impugned judgement and award dated 30.08.2014, has absolved the Insurance Company respondent no. 2 from the liability, and directed the appellant (owner of the vehicle) to pay the awarded amount of Rs. 6,39,000/- (Rupees six lakhs thirty-nine thousand) within 1 (one) month from the date of the said order to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the case with cost.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

(i) that during the trial the respondent No.2/Insurance Company had examined one Sri Ajit Kumar Baruah, the District Transport Officer, Tezpur as DW-1 and exhibited the original Road Permit as Exhibit No.B, for the vehicles running under the Assam State Transport Corporation for the period of 04-01-2008 to 07-01-2009. Through the said witness (DW-1) the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 exhibited the relevant page of Exhibit-B, Register as Exhibit-B(1) showing the issuance of route permit against the vehicle No AS-12-E- 0380. In the examination in chief, the said DW-1 stated that the road permit of the vehicle was issued on 24-10-2008, in the name of the appellant/owner against money receipt No. 8265160 dated 24-10- 2008, and the same was valid since 24-10-2008 till 23-10-2011 to ply between Bakori Dolonigaon, Lakhimpur to Tezpur and back. During the cross examination by the claimant/respondent No. 1, the DW-1 stated that the road permit of the vehicle was renewed on 24-10-2011 till 23- 10-2014. Based on the said evidence the learned Member, MACT held that on the date of accident on 17-08-2008, the vehicle had no valid route permit and accordingly the respondent No.2/Insurance Company was absolved from its liability, and held that the appellant/owner is liable to pay the awarded amount to the claimant/respondent No. 1. This finding is totally incorrect inasmuch as the DW-1, the District Transport Officer, Tezpur