Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
The National Insurance CO. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sri Gunendra Paul @ Gunendra Kumar Paul, son of late Gyenendra Paul & Ors. - Respondents
MAC. App. No. 02 of 2015
Decided On : 19-01-2017
For the Petitioners:Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Pandit, Advocate, Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyee, Adv., Mr. P. Saha, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of evidence in determining liability, income, and disability in motor accident claims, while also clarifying the tribunal's power regarding penal interest imposition.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 149(2), Section 171 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Vharathamma - [18.03.2012 at about 12.30 hours, Maruti Van and Maxi collision, injuries to claimant, income evidence, disability determination, penal interest imposition] - [Section 149(2), Section 171]
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained injuries in a collision between a Maruti Van and a Maxi, leading to a dispute over income evidence, disability determination, and penal interest imposition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the Maxi, and the claimant's income and disability were determined based on available evidence. The imposition of penal interest was deemed beyond the tribunal's power.
Issues: Dispute over income evidence, disability determination, and penal interest imposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on evidence to determine the cause of the accident, the claimant's income, and disability. It also clarified the tribunal's power regarding penal interest imposition.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the court directed the insurer to deposit the compensation with interest within two months.
1. This is an appeal by the insurer of the offending vehicles bearing Nos. TR02-C-0257 (Maruti Van) and TR-01-B- 2616 (Maxi) namely the National Insurance Co. Ltd., challenging the judgment and award dated 29.08.2014 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 19 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar.
2. The basic grounds of objection as projected in this appeal are (i) there is no cogent evidence in respect of income of the injured claimant, (ii) the vehicle was being plied on road without road permit and hence this constituted the breach of the contract relating to the indemnity and thereby, the insurance company would be absolved from the liability under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (iii) in absence of any opinion of the expert in respect of loss of functional ability from the accident, the determination of the tribunal on the disability for purpose of determining the loss of earning capacity cannot be sustained and (iv) the imposition of the penal interest is grossly beyond the competence of the tribunal inasmuch as Section 171 of the M.V. Act 1988 does not empower the tribunal to impose penal interest having retrospective effect for non-payment in time.
3. The facts relating to the accident that occurred on 18.03.2012 at about 12.30 hours while the claimant was traveling by the Maruti Van bearing No. TR02-C-0257 owned by the respondent No. 3, the injuries the claimant received in the said accident which the said vehicle met on Tilthai-Dharmanagar Road on collision with one Max Vehicle bearing No. TR-01B-2616 owned by the respondent No. 2 which was coming from the opposite direction with high and excessive speed and knocked the said Maruti Van loosing the control are not at all in dispute. From the said accident the claimant, the respondent No. 1, had suffered series of injuries. His right eye was damaged completely. He was immediately shifted to Shankardev Netralay, Guwahati. At the time of accident the injured was aged about 28 years and unmarried. The claimant-respondent has asserted that he was driver by profession and he used to drive a vehicle in the Water Resource Department at Dharmanagar. His monthly salary was Rs. 9000/- per month.
4. The tribunal has observed, inter alia, in the judgment dated 29.08.2014 as under:
“On the other hand the O.P. No. 1 proved some documents namely the registration of the vehicle being No. TR-01B-2612 as exhibit-A, its tax token valid up to 31.05.2013 as Exhibit-B, its fitness certificate valid up to 24.07.2013 from 24.07.2012 as Exhibit-C, another fitness up to 13.06.2012 from 13.06.2011 as exhibit-D, insurance policy of the said vehicle bearing No. 203002/31/11/6300000780 valid from 15.09.2011 t 14.09.2012 as Exhibit-e, the road permit of the vehicle dated 02.04.2012 valid up to 31.03.2017 as exhibit-F, pollution certificate of the vehicle valid up to 11.07.2012 to 10.01.2013 as exhibit-G, copy of driving license No. TRB0220070006397 lying in the name of Bipul Debnath as exhibit-H.”
5. From the para-8 of the said judgment it would appear that the appellant and the respondents No. 2-4 have clearly apprised the tribunal that they would not adduce any witness except what the O.P. No. 1, [the respondent No. 2 herein] had introduced in the evidence.
6. Even Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel however, did not make any endeavour to question the finding that for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. TR-01B-2616 [Max] by its driver the said accident occurred and the finding that the accident would not have taken place if the driver of the said offending vehicle were cautious. As such, liability of the accident has been squarely saddled with the said vehicle being No. TR-01B-2616 [Max]. The owner of the said vehicle, [the respondent No. 2 herein] had produced the valid insurance policy, the road permit, the pollution certificate and other relevant documents such as the fitness certificate etc. All those certificates were contemporaneous and valid
