The court emphasized the need for consistency in claims made by parties in related cases, reiterating the principle against taking contradictory stands within the same matter.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. P Hazarika, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Insurance Company. None appears for the remaining respondents i.e. the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment & award dated 06.03.2017 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 1747/2011, whereby the claim petition of the present appellant was allowed but the Insurance Company was absorbed of the liability, which was thrust upon the owner of the offending vehicle.

3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. On 20.09.2011 the husband /father of the appellants namely, Prasanta Boro was travelling on a motor cycle from Sonapur side towards Guwahati along with one Babul Sonowal on the left side of the road. At the time when they reached Kamarkuchi on National High Way, suddenly a Tata Dumper Tipper Truck bearing registration No. AS-01-DC-9740 coming from the opposite side driven in very high speed in rash and negligent manner knocked down the deceased. Due to the accident, Prasanta Boro died on spot. The other rider of the motor cycle namely, Babul Sonowal died in hospital on the next date. A corresponding case being Sonapur Police Station Case No. 211/ 2011 was registered under Section 279 / 33 / 304 (A) IPC against the driver of the Truck and after completion of the investigation police filed charge sheet against the driver of the Truck.

4. The appellant herein filed a MAC case being MAC Case No. 1747/2011 under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 praying for compensation for death of their Husband/ father Prasanta Boro. The said case was taken up by the learned MАСТ No. 1, Kamrup (M). Another MAC case was filed by the dependants of Babul Sonowal who was cо- passenger of Prasanta Boro. The case said was registered as MAC Case No. 2257 / 2011 and the said case was also taken up by the learned MACT No. 1, Kamrup (M).

5. The insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Dumper Tipper Truck bearing registration No. AS-01-DC-9740 i.e. National Insurance Company appeared in MAC Case No. 1747/2011 and filed written statement. By filing a additional written statement the insurance company pleaded that the vehicle AS-01-DC-9740 was involved in the accident but it was not insured with National Insurance Company at the relevant time.

6. The learned Tribunal after closure of evidence in MAC Case No. 1747 / 2011, by Judgment and Award dated 06.03.2017 held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of vehicle No. AS-01-DC-9740 (issue No. 1 and 2 at page 33 of the Memo of Appeal) but the learned Tribunal held that the said vehicle was not insured with National Insurance Company and insurance policy mentioned in the claim petition pertains to another vehicle, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and thereby fastened the liability upon the owner of the vehicle by awarding Rs. 11,90,000/- along with interest @6% from the date of the filing of the claim.

7. On the other hand the same Insurance company appeared in the other MAC Case No. 2257/2011 arising out of the same accident by filing written statement and did not state that the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-DC- 9740 was not insured with National Insurance Company. The insurance company only took the plea in MAC Case No. 2257 / 2011 to the effect that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. AS-01- DC-9740. The same officer of National had filed the written statemen