Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1089
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
On The Death Of Haidar Ali His Legal Heirs Rabiya Bibi And Ors - Respondents
MACApp. 45 of 2013
Decided On : 15-05-2025
For the Appellant : MR.R BARUAH, MRS.B DAS,MR.G BAISHYA,MS.D KOUR
For the Respondent: MR. A GANGULY, MR.M HUSSAIN, MR.A A KHAN, MR.B DAS, MR.M U MONDAL
The court upheld the compensation awarded by the MACT, affirming the insurer's liability due to established negligent driving and justified the multiplier for calculating compensation based on the deceased's circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163A - The appeal challenges the compensation awarded by the MACT on the grounds of policy validity and calculation of the multiplier. The court highlighted the insurer's contention regarding non-insurance and improper attribution of negligence against the truck driver, ultimately dismissing the appeal as devoid of merits. (Paras 2, 10, 12, 28)
(B) Liability - It was affirmed that the rash and negligent driving was sufficiently established through evidence, including a registered FIR against the driver, thus attributing liability to the insurer. (Paras 10, 24)
(C) Compensation Calculation - The multiplier adopted was based on the age of the deceased and found to be justified, reaffirming the principle that compensation must reflect loss of dependency accurately. (Paras 25, 27)
Facts of the case:
The accident occurred on 21.01.2002, leading to the death of Rafiqul Ali, with the claim filed for Rs. 5,00,000/- by his father after his death. The insurance policy was claimed to be valid at the time of the accident. (Paras 3, 14)
Findings of Court:
The policy was valid at the time of the incident despite the insurer's claims. The compensation awarded was not exorbitant. (Paras 26, 28)
Issues: Whether the accident resulted from the negligent driving of the vehicle and whether the offending vehicle was insured. (Paras 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence supported negligent driving and validated the insurance policy; hence the appeal was dismissed affirming the tribunal's decision. (Paras 24, 27)
Result: Appeal is hereby dismissed as appeal is devoid of merits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and initial claims overview. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's evaluation of insurance validity. (Para 8 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. insurer's contest against liability and compensation claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. arguments presented by the appellant (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. ruling on insurance policy validity and compensation calculation (Para 17) |
| 6. court's discussion on evidence presented (Para 21) |
| 7. multiplier and income assessment for compensation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. conclusion and decision of the court. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Heard learned counsel Mr. G. Baishya for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. M.U. Mondal for the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2008 passed by the learned Member, MACT at Dhubri in connection with MAC Case No. 112/2002. The appellant in this case is the Insurer i.e. the National Insurance Company Limited. The respondent in this case was the claimant Md. Haidar Ali and after his death, he has been substituted by his legal heirs Rabiya Bibi, Azizul Hoque, Riazul Hoque, Safikul Hoque and Ekramul Hoque, being wife and sons of the respondent No. 1 Haidar Ali.
3. The genesis of this case was that on 21.01.2002 at about 10.00 AM at National Highway No. 31 at Chhaagalia under Golakganj Police Station, District – Dhubri, Rafiqul Ali was mowed down by a truck bearing registration No. AS-01- 5186, which was proceeding from the side of Chhaagalia Check Post. The owner of the truck was Himmatsingka Motor Works Limited at Chatrtibari and driver was Sri Hamraj Bhatowal, who were arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. However, vide order dated 17.05.2024, the name of respondent No.3 was struck off from the array of respondents.
4. It is alleged that the truck skirted off and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased which was proceeding towards Baibazar, resulting in the death of the deceased Late Rafiqul Ali.
5. MAC Case No. 112/2002 was filed by the father of the deceased claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) as compensation. It is submitted that at the time of filing the claim petition, the claimant/respondent No. 1 was not aware if the vehicle was insured. It is submitted that the driver, insurer, and the owner were arrayed as respondent/opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and notices were issued to the opposite parties. However, the opposite party No. 2 i.e. the Insurer contested the proceeding and filed written statement whereas the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the proceeding and this case proceeded ex-parte against them.
6. The vehicle No. AS-01-5186 will hereinafter be referred to as offending vehicle.
7. It is averred that the report of the Investigating Officer, who seized the insurance certificate of the offending vehicle reveals that the insurance and the policy of the vehicle was valid up to 01.01.2003 by insurance policy covered by Insurance Cover No. 062270 and the Divisional Branch Code was 200100. The witness on behalf of the Insurer deposed that the Branch Officer at Dhubri sent a letter for the relevant papers for confirmation and on compliance of Section 64 . V.B.of the INSURANCE ACT .
8. In reply, the Divisional Office-1 at Guwahati of the National Insurance Company sent a letter to the Branch Office at Dhubri stating that the policy number mentioned in the claim petition does not belong to the Divisional Office- 1 of Guwahati Division. Two DWS also stated through the evidence that the policy does not belong to the National Insurance Company and thus, the company is not liable to pay the compensation.
9. It is contended that the learned Member without considering the fact that the policy number mentioned in the claim petition has no relation to any policy of the Insurer, erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty Thousand) to be paid to the claimant by the Insurer vide order dated 22.07.2008. It was further c
