The importance of specific pleadings and the application of legal principles from previous cases in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

These four appeals, arising out of the same motor accident, filed against the common judgment and award of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’) dated 30.07.2012 were jointly heard for disposal by this common judgment and order.

2. Heard Mrs. PDB Baruah, learned counsel for the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Mr. LR Das, learned counsel for the claimants. Also heard Mr. R Nath, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

3. On 04.06.2005, at about 6:30pm, the Maruti Van having registration No.ML-05-D-9377, in which Shri. Richmond Nongsiej (minor) claimant of MACT Case No.94/2005 and (L) Shri. Nehskhen Blein, (whose parents and sisters are the claimants of MACT Case No.95/2005) were traveling had an accident because of a collusion with a Truck bearing registration No.HR-37/8241 at Mawlai Nankabrin, NH 40. In the said motor accident, (L) Nehskhen Blein died on the spot and Shri. Richmond Nongsiej (minor) had suffered injuries. The offending vehicle Maruti Van having registration No.ML-05-D-9377 was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant of MACT APPL. No.3/2012 and MACT APPL No.4/2012). The injured Shri. Richmond Nongsiej (minor) represented by his mother Smti.Jubida Nongsiej of Mawlai Nongpdeng, Shillong filed MACT Case No.94 of 2005 against the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Div.10, Flat No.101-106, N-1, New Delhi and Divisional Manager, Div. Office 9, Opp. Rholi Cinema, P-90, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi-1 C/o Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Shillong alternative address C/o Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Shillong claiming compensation for the medical expenditure at the tune of Rs.82,347.10/-for the medical treatment of the injuries sustained by Shri. Richmond Nongsiej in the said motor accident. Application for permission to contest the claim petition on all grounds over and above the limited ground under Sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. the insurer of the offending vehicle in the said claim case had been rejected by the learned Member, MACT. The written statement filed on behalf of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. reads as follows:-

“IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT SHILLONG

MACT CASE NO. 94/2005

Shri. Richard Nongsiej - Claimant

VRS.

National Insurance Co & others - Opposite Parties

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Written Statement filed on behalf of Opp. Party National Insurance Co.

The Opposite Party Above named Most Respectfully Begs to submit:-

1. That the claim petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable in law and facts.

2. That there is no cause of action for the claim petition more particularly against the answering opposite party which is a misconceived one filed malafide by suppressing and misrepresenting facts and deserves to be rejected outright.

3. The save and except what has been specifically admitted in this written statement and what are matters of record the answering opposite party denies the rest of the allegation and averments made in the claim petition and the claimant is required to put to strict proof there of.

4. That the statement made in para 1, 2, 3, 4 are within the personal knowledge of the claimant and also matters of record.

5. That the statement made in para 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 are required to be proved with proper supporting evidence. The claim petition is not supported by any certificate/documents with regard to the nature of alleged injury sustained and the medical treatment if any undergone. In the absence of proper proof establishing the injury and treatment no claim on account of any alleged injury can be entertained.

6. That with regard to the statement made in para 15,16, 17, 18 are matters of record and those in para 19, 20, 21 are within the personal knowledge of the claimant which are required to be proved. It is submitted that the claim petition does not disclose the Insurance Policy No