Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellants
Versus
Shri Subi Chandra Tripura - Respondents
MAC APP. NO.62 OF 2015
Decided On : 03-05-2016
For the Appellants :Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Datta, Advocate
The judgment establishes the importance of accurate and timely recording of facts by the police and condemns the falsification of facts to shift liability to insurance companies.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Motor Accident Claims - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - The court discussed the dispute over the vehicle involved in the accident, highlighting the importance of evidence from the Fire Service officers and the police. The judgment emphasized the need for accurate and timely recording of facts by the police and condemned the falsification of facts to shift liability to insurance companies.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant alleged that a Mini Bus overturned due to rash driving, causing injuries and deaths. The Insurance Company disputed the vehicle involved in the accident, leading to a trial and subsequent appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred with a truck, not a bus, based on evidence from the Fire Service officers and discrepancies in the claimant's statements. It condemned the falsification of facts and the police's involvement in the conspiracy.
Issues: Dispute over the vehicle involved in the accident, falsification of facts, and police involvement in the conspiracy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of accurate and timely recording of facts by the police and condemned the falsification of facts to shift liability to insurance companies.
Final Decision: The appeal by the Insurance Company was allowed, and the impugned award of the learned Tribunal was set aside. The Director General of Police was directed to ensure such occurrences do not take place in the future, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was instructed to dispose of related cases in light of the judgment.
This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 22-06-2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gomati District, Udaipur in case No. T.S.(MAC) 58 of 2013 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.96,600/- along with interest in favour of the claimant.
2. The petitioner Subi Chandra Tripura filed a claim petition in which it was alleged that on 26.12.2012 he had boarded one Mini Bus bearing registration No.TR-03-1284 and this bus overturned on the roadside near the church between Kalachara and Taikumba on Agartala-Sabroom National Highway. In the claim petition, it was also mentioned that the petitioner along with many others was traveling by boarding the vehicle in question to attend a meeting of the CPI(M) party when the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle.
3. Sri Sanju Kumar Sen, the owner of the Mini bus filed a reply which is very evasive in nature. In para-3 of the reply, it is denied that any alleged accident occurred on 26.12.2012 at 4-30 p.m. in between Kalachara and Taikumba near the church on the northern side of Kalachara hospital on Agartala-Sabroom road. All the allegations are denied but in para-4 of the petition it is stated that the vehicle was duly insured and driven by a duly licensed driver and if it is held that compensation is payable, then the Insurance Company is liable to pay the same.
4. The National Insurance Company Ltd. filed a reply and denied all the allegations made in the petition. A specific stand was taken that the claim filed was false. After trial the learned Tribunal has passed the award and hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company.
5. Sri S. Lodh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has urged that the award is totally illegal. It is submitted that from the evidence on record, it is apparent that the claimant and other persons were traveling in a Mini truck bearing No.TR-03-C-1842. He submits that since that Mini truck was owned by one Sri Sadhan Tripura and was apparently not insured, a totally false case was made out that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was Mini bus bearing No.TR-03-1284.
6. I had partly heard arguments on 29.02.2016 and had noted that immediately after the accident when the FIR was lodged, the number of the vehicle was shown to be TR-03-C-1842 and it was clearly mentioned that the vehicle is a truck. However, after many days the informant and the other witnesses changed their stand and stated that the vehicle involved in the accident was a Mini bus bearing registration No.TR-03-1284. Therefore, I had passed the following order on 29.02.2016:-
“The main dispute in this case is whether the accident in question took place with vehicle bearing No. TR-03C-1842 which was a truck or with vehicle bearing No. TR-03-1284 which is a Mini Bus. Initially the FIR was lodged alleging that the vehicle involved in the accident was TR-03C-1842.
However, later the informant got his statement recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C and not only changed the number of the vehicle but also changed the vehicle from a truck to a bus. During the course of the trial before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the insurance company moved an application in which it prayed that the Investigating Officer who initially investigated the case be called for and also the record of the District Divisional Fire Officer, Gomati District, Udaipur be called for.
According to the insurance company, it was the Fire Service man who had immediately reached the spot and in their record also the vehicle involved was a truck and not a bus. A party may confuse a number of a vehicle but I find it difficult to believe that a party can confuse a bus with a truck. The number may change from 1842 to 1284 but prima facie I am of the opinion that a truck cannot turn into a bus or vice versa.
I am indeed shocked by the manner in which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rejected this
