The court affirmed that compensation is valid based on negligence established solely against one party, absent evidence of contributory negligence from the other party.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Acharya, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal u/s 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against the judgment and award dated 03.10.2015 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metro), in MACT Case No. 2055/2013.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 17.10.2013 when a Spark car was proceeding from Nagaon towards Guwahati on the left side of the road and while reached at Nellie Over Bridge, on NH way, all of a sudden a truck bearing No. AS-01/BC-8671 coming from the opposite direction in a very high speed, came on the wrong track and knocked the aforesaid car from the front side, consequent to which one of the occupant of the car Parmananda @ Paramanada Giri died on the spot and the widowed wife and the son has instituted a claim for compensation of Rs. 40 lacs. The claimant is of the view that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and accordingly claimed compensation which was registered as MAC Case No. 2055/2013. After going through the evidence on record the learned Additional District Judge No. 2/ Member MACT has passed the judgment and order dated 03.10.2015 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,81,813/- to be paid to the claimant by the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. the New India Assurance Company Limited, the appellant herein.

The driver of the offending vehicle truck did not contest the case and the case proceeded ex-parte against him. However, the owner of the offending vehicle had contested the case.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Acharya, the learned counsel for the appellant that the Hon’ble Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record on its proper perspective in assessing compensation. As the accident occurred due to head on collision as stated by the claimant in the claim petition itself and in its evidence, so both the drivers should be held equally responsible for the accident and the owners of both the vehicles should have been made equally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. But, the learned Tribunal has committed error by not taking into consideration this aspect of the matter and awarded the whole amount to be paid by the present appellant being insurer of the Truck.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Acharya that the Driving License of the driver of the offending truck is incorrect and forged. In that aspect the present appellant has filed an additional Written Statement stating that the Driving License of the driver of the offending truck was incorrect and forged and that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Acharya that it is an admitted fact that the accident occurred due to head and collision between the two vehicles and from the evidence also it reveals that there was no curve on the road and it was a straight road. So everything could be seen for both the vehicles and hence there was contributory negligence for both the vehicles for which the accident had occurred. But, the learned Member, MACT did not consider these aspects of the case and arrived at a wrong decision directing the present appellant/the insurance company to satisfy the award.

7. Mr. Acharya submitted that admittedly it was a head on collision and considering the condition of the road and other aspects of the case it may be considered that there was a contributory negligence from the drivers of both the vehicles and hence both the vehicles should be held equally liable for the said accident. To substantiate the same he also re