Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sri Raju Gope – Respondent
MAC App. No. 37 of 2020
Decided on : 15-09-2021
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173(1), 166, 184 and 187 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 338 - Rash and negligent driving - Functional disability - Compensation granted - claimant respondent was standing at his left side of road - At that time speeding truck knocked him down on its way. He was rescued and hospitalized by local people. His right leg was seriously injured. Initially doctors tried to save leg by an operation in AGMC & GBP hospital at Agartala but ultimately his right leg had to be amputed. The claimant who was a mason by occupation thus suffered from 100% functional disability as a result of accident.
Finding of the Court :
Plea of the appellant that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle is not acceptable and the award of the tribunal cannot be discarded on this ground - Compensation for cost of treatment has been assessed by the tribunal on the basis of documents submitted by the claimant. Compensation granted by the tribunal under other heads also appears to be reasonable. This apart neither side has raised any question with regard to the determination of compensation - Court held that his functional disability was 100%. As per his birth certificate, date of birth of the claimant is 25.01.1991. Therefore, tribunal rightly held that he was 25 years of age on the date of accident - Tribunal assessed his loss of income. Since the claimant was a self employed person, an addition of 40% was made to his income towards his future prospect.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal has been filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 07.09.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(MAC) 238 of 2016 whereby and whereunder compensation of a sum of Rs.30,42,721/- along with 9% annual interest from the date of presentation of the claim till disbursement of the amount was awarded to the claimant respondent No.1 for sustaining disability from a road traffic accident which occurred on 15.09.2016 at Champaknagar in Teliamura Sub Division.
[2] It would emerge from the Memo of Appeal submitted by the appellant that the appeal has been filed mainly on the following grounds:
(ii) Tribunal erroneously saddled the appellant insurance company with the liability of paying compensation to the injured without considering the fact that the offending vehicle carried the claimant as a gratuitous passenger in breach of the terms of the insurance policy.
(iii) Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that claimant failed to prove his age and income by adducing cogent evidence.
[3] Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned advocate appearing for the appellant insurance company. Also heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondent. Heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned senior advocate appearing along with Mr. R. Saha, advocate for the respondent owner of the offending vehicle. They have made detailed submissions on behalf of the parties which will be discussed later.
[4] The bare facts which are essential to appreciate the challenge are as under:
On 15.09.2016 at about 11.30 am, claimant respondent Raju Gope was standing at his left side of Champaknagar-Teliamura road at Champaknagar bazar. At that time the speeding truck bearing registration No. TR 01 Y 1583 knocked him down on its way to Agartala. He was rescued and hospitalized by the local people. His right leg was seriously injured. Initially doctors tried to save the leg by an operation in AGMC & GBP hospital at Agartala but ultimately his right leg had to be amputed. The claimant who was a mason by occupation thus suffered from 100% functional disability as a result of the accident. After the matter was reported to police, Jirania PS case No. 30 of 2016 under sections 279 and 338, IPC and sections 184 and 187, MV Act was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and after investigation charge sheet was also filed against him for the said offences. By means of filing an application under section 166 MV Act at the tribunal, claimant respondent claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.30,95,000/- with 14% interest thereon.
[5] In order to contest the case, insurance company filed written statement of defence at the tribunal pleading that liability of the insurance company would arise only in the event of proof of the facts that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant, the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle and the driver had a valid driving licence and all other documents of the vehicle were in order. It was also pleaded by the insurance company that the amount of compensation which was claimed by the claimant was exorbitant and rate of interest claimed by him was also unreasonable which in no case would exceed 6%.
[6] The owner of the vehicle in his written statement of defence claimed that his vehicle was insured with the appellant and on the date of the accident the insurance policy was in operation. Respondent owner denied the fact that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of his vehicle. The owner also denied that claiman
Motor Accident - Compensation Awarded - Challenged - Award of the tribunal with regard to determination of compensation towards loss of income of the claimant cannot be faulted with.
Point of law : Compensation - Tribunal should adopt equitable principles and reasonable approach for determination of just compensation.
Compensation in motor vehicle accident claims assessed on preponderance of probability; strict proof and police investigation not necessary for entitlement.
Claimants in motor vehicle accident cases must meet the burden of proof on a preponderance of probabilities, and strict evidence rules do not apply, allowing the invocation of the res ipsa loquitur p....
The principle that in motor accident claims, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish the case on the preponderance of probabilities, and the Tribunal is not strictly bound by the rules ....
The court ruled that attributing contributory negligence to the deceased was unjustified and emphasized the principle of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The deposition given before the Tribunal should be given more weight than the contents of the F.I.R. and other police records when determining liability in a motor accident claim.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
