The court affirmed that insurance companies must raise liability defenses at trial; failure to do so restricts their arguments on appeal, particularly regarding employment coverage and income assessment.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Johny. L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant and Mr. Roshan Subedi,learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. The instant appeal is filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the Judgment & Award dated 05.07.2023, passed by the Ld. Member – cum – Presiding Officer, MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 21 of 2019, awarding a compensation of Rs. 31,83,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand) only to the claimant to be paid by the Insurance Company/appellant with an interest of 7% p.a from the date of filing the claim application in MACT Case No. 21 of 2019.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 15.02.2018 at around 3:00 p.m, one Tank Lorry (TATA) B/R No. MZ – 05 – 8834 belonging to the Managing Director, MizoFed, Aizawl (respondent No. 2) driven by Lalnithanga (respondent No. 3) met with an accident between Tlawng River and Mausen Village, and Lalhriatrenga (38 years), who was travelling in the said vehicle as a second driver, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on 19.02.2018. The claimant/respondent No. 1 claimed compensation for the death of his son in MACT Case No. 21 of 2019, and claimed that his son Lalhriatrenga (late) was engaged as a driver by Lalnithanga/respondent No. 2 at a monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only and that the accident vehicle Tank Lorry (TATA) B/R No. Mz – 05 – 8834 was validly insured under policy No. 53060031170100000618, period of coverage being 05.05.2017 – 04.05.2018, and was thus covered during the period of the accident.

4. The appellant insurance company was arrayed as O.P No. 3 while the Managing Director, MizoFed was arrayed as O.P No. 1 and the driver of the vehicle Lalnithanga was arrayed as O.P No. 2. The opposite parties in the MACT Case No. 21 of 2019, filed their written statements wherein, the O.P No. 1 MizoFed Ltd. stated that the accident vehicle was validly insured during the time of the accident, and therefore, the insurance company/O.P No.3, being the insurer, was liable to pay the compensation. O.P No. 2 Lalnithanga, in his written statement admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle which was owned by the Managing Director, MizoFed Ltd. and that he was having a valid driving license at the time the accident. The O.P No. 3 insurance company /appellant contested the case by stating that the liability of the company was subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also challenged the monthly income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga, by pointing out that the instant claimant had previously filed MACT Case No. 53 of 2018, u/s 163 A of the MV Act, in the same caused of action, wherein, the income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga was taken as ‘as per notional income,’ and that the claimant had now contradicted himself regarding the income of the deceased Lalhriatrenga.

5. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

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

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

(iii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation and if so, to what extend and who is liable to pay?

The claimant had examined 3 (three) witnesses during the course of the trial, who were duly cross examined by the opposite parties. Thereafter, on considering the evidence adduce during trial, the Ld. Tribunal decided all the issues in favor of the claimant, by awarding a compensation of Rs. 31,83,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Eighty Three Thous