The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of rash and negligent driving, Act of God, and res ipsa loquitur in determining liability for a fatal accident.

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

This Appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 28-05-2015 passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Sikkim at Mangan (for short "the Claims Tribunal"), in MACT Case No.19 of 2014, directing the Appellant/Insurer to pay Rs. 64,32,400/- (Rupees sixty four lakhs thirty two thousand and four hundred) only, with interest @ 10% per annum on the said sum to the Claimants from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, i.e., 12-09-2014, till full and final payment.

2. The primary thrust of the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the Claim before the Claims Tribunal does not stand as the accident, the onus of which lies on the Claimants to prove, did not occur either due to rash or negligent driving which is a sine qua non for a Claim made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988"), but is attributable to natural calamity, an Act of God, since it occurred due to a landslide which crushed the occupants and the vehicle. That the contents of the FIR, Exhibit 2, or the Final Report, both, relied on by the Respondents do not indicate any element of rashness or negligence on the part of the deceased driver as evident from the fact that the case was registered only under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") and not under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"), hence the Respondents cannot base their Claim on the principle of res ipsa loquitur, which is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances. Besides which, it is urged that the compensation awarded is not just and the interest of 10% is exorbitant, the impugned Judgment and Award be set aside. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and Others, (2007) 13 SC 476.

3. Per contra, it was the contention of Learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 that the facts at the site of the accident unequivocally establish that the driver of the vehicle proceeded to drive through the landslide despite being aware that the area was prone to falling boulders, without application of mind which resulted in the fatal accident, killing the victim, the driver and a third occupant. The act of the driver was undoubtedly rash and negligent and not the act of a prudent person who would have considered the risks involved in driving through the landslide area, hence the principle of res ipsa loquitur kicks into place. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding and Award of the Claims Tribunal requires no interference. He has relied upon a plethora of Judgments to buttress his arguments.

4. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 had no submissions to put forth.

5. I have heard the submissions of Learned Counsel at length. I have also perused the documents and records as well as the impugned Judgment and Award.

6. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that, the deceased had taken a lift while returning from work in her colleague's vehicle on 24-06-2014, enroute the vehicle met with an accident due to landslide and falling boulders which crushed the vehicle, resulting in the death of the victim, the driver and another occupant. The Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein, are the wife and sons respectively of Karma Thinlay Bhutia, a victim of the accident, Respondent No.4 is the owner of the vehicle.

7. The Claims Tribunal in consideration of the evidence on record decided all the four issues settled by it for determination in favour of the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, accordingly the impugned Judgment and Award was passed.

8. It is not the case of the Respondents that they are detracting from the facts as laid down in Exhibit 2, the FIR or for that matter the Final Report, therefore, the authority relied on by the Appellants in Oriental Insurance Company Limited 1, inter alia, as extracted hereunde