J U D G E M E N T

Date : 30.03.2022 This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’)

against the Judgment and Award dated 30.03.2021 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 60 of 2017 passed by the Member-cum-Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aizawl, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,83,600/- (Rupees Six lakhs eighty three thousand and six hundred )only along with an interest at 7% p.a.

2] Heard Mr. Roshan Subedi, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. L.H Lianhrima learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 assisted by Miss Ruth Lalruatfeli, as well as Mr. Lalremruata, counsel for the respondent No.2/Claimant.

3] Brief facts of the case is that the Claimant (Respondent No.1 in the instant appeal) herein filed the said MACT Case No. 60/2017 against the Opposite party No.1 (respondent No.2 in the instant case/owner of the vehicle Truck) and Opposite Party No.2 (Appellant in the instant case). In the said MACT Case No. 60/2017, the Claimant/Respondent No.1 made a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation for the death of her son in accident which occurred on 30.11.2016.Her son being a pillion rider was proceeding from Chanmari towards Zarkawt in a motor bike B/R No.Mz-01 J-5293 driven by K. Lalhmingthanga which collided with another bike and her son Lalnunsanga fell on the road and was ran over by the Truck B/R No. MZ-01 G-7718 owned by the respondent No.2 herein resulting to the death of her son on the spot.

4] The appellant had previously filed an appeal before this Court numbered as MAC Appeal No. 19/2019 and the same was disposed of on 26.07.2019 by remanding the matter back to the MACT, Aizawl for Trial Denovo. Thereafter, the a fresh trial was held in Case No. 60 of 2017 and after the pleadings from all the parties were submitted, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) whether the present claim application is maintainable in its present form and style ?

ii) whether the claimants is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extend and who is liable to pay?

iii) whether the policy on which the claim is based upon is a fake policy document ? (Issue added after the matter was remanded back by this Court, Aizawl Bench for Denovo Trial).

5] That during the course of the proceeding the claimant had produced 1(one) witness i.e., herself only. The appellant and the respondent No.2 herein also produced one witness namely Shri Tathagata Banerjee.

6] That after hearing the parties and considering the available evidences, the Ld. Member-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Aizawl passed the Judgment & Award dated 30.03.2021 whereby the Appellant/OP No. 2 was held liable and accordingly ordered to pay a compensation to the respondent No.1/Claimant amounting to Rs.6,83,600/-

(Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) with 7% interest from the date of filing i.e., 04.10.2017.

7] That being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment & Award dated 30.03.2021 in MACT Case No. 60 of 2017 the appellant has preferred this instant appeal on the following inter alia grounds :

i) that the alleged held cover note letter number SBI/GHY/23122011/0000093 as mentioned in the claim petition and exhibited before the Tribunal is found to be fake cover letter and no policy was issued against the aforesaid fake cover letter and that the appellant herein submits that as per the provisions of section 64V(b) of Insurance Act, 1938, no risk on the part of insurer commences unless the premium in full is paid in advance by the insured as such there is no liability on the part of the appellant. Despite this, the Ld. Tribunal discarded the evidence and the materials available on record submitted by the parties and illegally proceeded to make the impugned Judgment &

Award dated 30.03.2021 in favour of the Respondent No. 1/Claimant.

ii) that the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl could not have awarded