The court affirmed that the absence of GD Entry does not preclude support for claims based on eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the need for evidence in negligence cases.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company and Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the judgment and award dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.1, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.53,38,941/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the evidence on affidavit of the PWs i.e. 26.11.2019 till realization.

3. Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company submitted that by way of the present appeal, the appellant Insurance Company urges the following grounds of objection:

(i) The findings so arrived at by the learned Tribunal in respect to Issue No.(i) without perusal of the GD Entry was not in accordance with law and as such is required to be interfered with. Elaborating the said submission, the learned counsel submitted that the FIR in the case was filed after 27 days and as such, the GD Entry was a very vital piece of evidence which ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that steps were taken on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company upon the Officer In-charge, Kamalpur Police Station for production of the GDE Extract pertaining to Kamalpur P.S. Case No.20/2018. But in spite of taking steps on three different occasions, the Officer In-charge, Kamalpur Police Station did not produce the said GD Entry. He therefore submitted that this is a case where there is a strong likelihood that the alleged accident did not happen and is a case of a fraudulent claim.

(ii) Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel further submitted that though the claim proceedings was filed on 02.02.2018 and the learned Tribunal have also acknowledged that the appellant Insurance Company was not involved in the delay of the said proceedings therefore awarding of interest from the date of filing of the evidence on affidavit filed by the PWs i.e. 26.11.2019 without taking into account that during the COVID period, the functioning of the Courts stopped, the interest during this period ought to have been waived.

(iii) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in law in awarding interest on future prospects.

4. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who are the claimants have no objection in waiving of their interests during the period of the COVID and calculating the interest w.e.f. 01.03.2022 taking into account that from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, there was COVID pandemic. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 therefore submitted that the rate of interest ought not to be altered or interfered with in view of concession made by the claimants.

5. In view of the above submissions so made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the second ground of objection which is taken by the appellant Insurance Company appears to have been redressed.

6. The question therefore arises as to whether interference to the impugned judgment and award dated 08.0