In an appeal filed by claimants seeking compensation enhancement, the High Court cannot reduce the original award, even if it deems the sum excessive, unless the insurer has filed a cross-objection challenging said quantum.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. R. Agarwala, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants impugning the judgment and award dated 13.06.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 2046/2012.

3. The appellants/claimants are mainly aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the impugned judgment and award.

4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 22.12.2012 at about 2:00 PM, the deceased, namely, Kasim Uddin@ Ghosi Uddin was traveling in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-CC-2434. The said vehicle was proceeding towards Dobu Agalgre Nowpipara, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya. However, due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver, it collided with a truck carrying coal. As a result of the said accident, said Kasim Uddin@ Ghosi Uddin sustained serious injuries on his person. He was shifted to Rongjeng CHC for treatment. However, he succumbed to his injuries. A police case, namely, Rongjeng P.S. Case No. 22(08)/2012 was also registered under Sections 279/338/304(A) of the IPC in respect of the said accident.

5. The present appellants who are the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased Kasim Uddin approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(M) by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for death of Kasim Uddin @ Ghosi Uddin in the aforementioned vehicular accident. In the inquiry, the said claim case was registered as MAC Case No. 2046/2012. In the said inquiry, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not appear and the inquiry proceeded ex parte against them. However, the Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement.

6. Upon pleadings of both the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed following issues:-

“1. Whether victim Late Kasim Uddin @ Gosim Uddin died as a result of the injuries sustained in the alleged road accident dated 22-07-2012 involving vehicle No. AS-01-CC-2434 (Sumo Victa) and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?

7. In support of their claim, the claimants examined two witnesses, namely, the claimant No. 1 herself and one eyewitness, namely, Mortaj Ali as PW-2. They also exhibited several documents as documentary evidence. They also exhibited three documentary exhibits in support of their claim.

8. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined one Mridul Dev Goswami as DW-1 and exhibited one General Diary Entry extracts as Exhibit-A. Ultimately, on completion of the inquiry, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation amount of Rs.11,35,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Thirty Five Thousand)to the claimants along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing till realization. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal apportioned the award in the manner i.e., 50% to the claimant No. 1, who is