An insurer cannot avoid liability for compensation due to an alleged breach of policy conditions without establishing through cogent evidence that such breach was fundamental to the accident. Additionally, personal expense deductions in death claims must strictly correspond to the number of existing dependents.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

[1] Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Mondal, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7/claimants as well as the cross objectors. Also heard Ms. N. Deka, the learned counsel for the respondent No.8 as well as Ms. J. Baishya, the learned counsel for the respondent No.9.

[2] By this common judgment this court intends to dispose of the MAC Appeal No. 95/2017 filed by the Insurance Company, namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited as well as the Cross Objection No. 17/2019 filed by the respondents no. 1 to 7/claimants.

[3] At the beginning of making his submissions, Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pointed out to this court that before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in the MAC Case No. 1218/2013, the claimant No. 1 had put her left thumb impression in the claims application. Whereas, before this Court while filing vakalatnama in the instant MAC Appeal No. 95/2017, she has put her signatures, which is a matter of grave concern and which raises doubt regarding the identity of the claimant no.1.

[4] On this aspect, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7/cross objectors has submitted that though it is true that the claimant has put her thumb impression in the claims petition, however, while giving her testimony as PW-1 before the Tribunal, she has inscribed her signatures in Hindi on the deposition form and the said signature tallies with the signature given by the claimant No. 1 in the vakalatnama before this Court. Hence, he submits that there is no doubt regarding the identity of claimant No. 1 in this case.

[5] The facts relevant for consideration of this MAC Appeal, in brief, are that, on 26.04.2013, at about 12.30 pm, the husband of the claimant No.1, namely Subhash Chandra Yadav was proceeding on the left side of the MRD Road, at New Guwahati under Chandmari Police Station. At that time a mini city bus bearing registration No. AS-25-A-6593 coming from Noonmati side in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down. As a result of the said accident said Subhash Chandra Yadav sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital. However, he succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, the claimant No.1, who is the wife of the deceased Subhash Chandra Yadav and claimant No.2 to 7 who are the children of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.2 Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati, seeking compensation for the death of late Subhash Chandra Yadav in the aforementioned vehicular accident. The said claim case was registered as MAC Case No.1218/2013.

[6] The present appellant i.e., the Oriental Insurance Company Limited contested the claim case by filing written statement. Whereas, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the claims case proceeded ex-parte against them.

[7] Upon pleadings of the parties the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the death was caused to the victim Subhash Chandra Yadav due to involvement of vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-25-A