SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Yarenjungla Longkumer, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Petitioner 
Versus
Sh C.Lalsangzuala and Anr. – Respondents
MACApp./3/2024
Decided On : 25-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Laldinliana
For the Respondent: Ms. Vanlalhraitpui, Mr. Samuel Lalremruata

Claimants under Section 166 of the MV Act must prove ownership and negligence; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 173 - Appeal by insurance company against MACT order awarding compensation for vehicle damage - Claimant alleged ownership of vehicle involved in accident - Insurance company contested ownership and negligence - Tribunal found in favor of claimant, awarding Rs. 2,80,482/- with interest - Appeal filed challenging the maintainability of the claim and proof of negligence. (Paras 1-5, 20-26)

(B) Ownership and Negligence - Claimant must prove ownership and negligence under Section 166 of the MV Act - Mere possession or unregistered sale deed insufficient to establish ownership - Burden of proof lies with claimant to show negligence of the driver. (Paras 9, 20, 26)

(C) Non-joinder of Parties - Failure to include driver as party in claim petition raises issues regarding liability - Claimant must establish negligence of driver for compensation under Section 166. (Paras 11, 26)

Facts of the case:
The claimant filed a petition claiming Rs. 2,80,482/- for damage to his vehicle due to an accident involving a Scorpio vehicle owned by the second respondent. The insurance company contested the claim on grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of proof of ownership and negligence.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the claimant failed to prove ownership of the vehicle and the negligence of the driver of the Scorpio vehicle, leading to the conclusion that the claim was not maintainable.

Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the claim, proof of negligence, and the ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claimant did not establish ownership or negligence, thus the appeal was allowed, and the MACT order was set aside.

Result: Appeal allowed; MACT order quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Yarenjungla Longkumer, J.

Heard Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Vanlalhriatpuii, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Samuel Lalremruata, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl Branch, Aizawl under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle, Act 1988, praying for setting aside the Impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned member MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 24/2021.

2. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal is that the claimant/respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the damage of his vehicle B/R MZ-01-J 8843 (Chevrolet Spark). The story of the claimant/respondent No. 1 was that, on 10.04.2021 at 1:00 P.M one vehicle Scorpio B/R MZ01/P-2457 owned by the respondent 2 Sh. Lalramchena which was driven by his driver Lalnunchhunga, was proceeding towards Aizawl, from Thenzawl when it collided with the claimant’s vehicle Chevrolet Spark B/R No.MZ01/ 8843 driven by driver Lalhmingduhawma. As a result, the vehicle of the claimant/respondent No.1 was badly damaged. That the vehicle which was involved in the accident, the Scorpio B/R No. MZ01/P-2457 was validly insured with the United Insurance Co. Ltd., Aizawl, Mizoram with policy No. 1305023120P10706743 with a validity from 30.09.2020 to midnight of 29.09.2021. The estimated bills for the repair of his accident vehicle was around Rs. 2,80,482/-(Rupees Two lakhs eight thousands four hundred and eighty two) as estimated by the work shop Highland Chevrolet. The claim petition was filed by the claimant/respondent No. 1, claiming Rs. 2,80,482/- for the damage caused to his vehicle because of the vehicular accident which occurred on 10.04.2021. The claim was contested by both the respondent No. 2/owner of the Scorpio vehicle and the present appellant/insurance by submitting their respective written statements.

3. The respondent No. 2/owner of Scorpio vehicle in his written statement stated that he is the owner of the Scorpio vehicle B/R MZ01/P-2457 which was driven by his driver Lalhmingduhawma and the collision of the vehicle took place at Chalkawn, Sailam, Mizoram, and he specifically stated that his driver was not at fault for the occurrence of the accident. He further stated in his written statement that the bill annexed by the claimant in the claim petition is only an estimated amount and as such the claimant is not liable to receive the amount claimed by him. Moreover, since his vehicle was validly insured at the time of the collision, he is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

4. The appellant/insurance company in their written statement stated that the claim is bad because of non-joinder/mis-joinder of necessary parties and in that regard, it was submitted that the two vehicles Chevrolet Spark and Scorpio were involved in the accident and as such the owners, drivers and insurers of the two vehicles are necessary parties. It was also stated in the written statement that the claimant is not the owner of the Chevrolet Spark vehicle and it was also denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Scorpio, it was denied that the claimant had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,80,482/- for repair of his vehicle.

The Tribunal framed three issues :

“i) Whether the claim application is maintainable in its present form and style?

ii) Whether there was fault on the part of the driver owner of the accident vehicle?

iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, and if so, who is liable to pay and to what extent?”

5. The claimant produced and examined three witnesses and the O.Ps produced and examined one witness. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal passed Impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2023 by which the appellant/insurer company was directed to deposit Rs. 2,80,482/- along with interest @ 7% Per Annum from the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top