An insurer cannot contest appeal grounds outside statutory defenses without a specific order under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. On 18-09-2011, a Maruti Suzuki, Taxi vehicle, driven by one Bikash Pradhan in which Suk Maya Tamang, the stepmother of Respondent No.1, was travelling with other occupants was hit by boulders, that rolled down the hillside, after being activated by the occurrence of an earthquake at that time. Consequently, the vehicle careened off the road into the river, flowing below, in which all the occupants, except one Nim Lhamu Sherpa, were swept away by the river. The body of one Wangdi Sherpa was recovered by the riverside near Singtam. Eleven years have passed since the date of the accident and as the bodies remained unrecovered it is presumed that they all perished in the accident. The Respondent No.1 filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter the “MV Act”) before the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, the “MACT”). The cause of the accident was stated to be the vehicle driven at high speed, as a consequence of which the driver could not control it when the earthquake occurred. The vehicle was thus hit by the rolling boulders. The owner of the vehicle Respondent No.2, contested the Claim Petition on grounds that the vehicle was properly maintained and mechanically fit to be in service at the time of the accident. It was driven by a qualified driver with a valid and effective driving licence. The insurance policy and all other documents of the vehicle were also valid and effective. The Appellant Insurance Company, contested the claim and denied its liability to make good the compensation on grounds that, rash and negligent driving had not been proved nor was there a death certificate from the concerned authority to establish the death of the deceased in the accident.

(i) The Learned MACT settled a singular issue for determination; Whether the Petitioner/Claimant is entitled to the compensation claimed? If so, who is liable to pay the same?

(ii) After due consideration of the facts and circumstances, the MACT, vide its impugned Judgment dated 17-10-2023, MACT Case No.09 of 2023 (Nim Tshering Sherpa vs. Passang Lhamu Sherpa and Another), at Paragraph 13 observed inter alia that, in a case of this nature, roving enquiry to prove rashness and negligence on the part of the driver is not required. That, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to delve into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not to be followed. That, for the purpose of this case, prima facie, there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, which resulted in the accident and consequential death of the deceased. Having found all documents to be valid the Learned MACT concluded that the age of the deceased undisputedly was forty years and being an able-bodied person, she was earning ₹ 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only, per month. The compensation was accordingly computed in favour of the Respondent No.1, under the following heads;

Interest @ 10% per annum, was granted on the said sum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its full realization.

2. Before this Court, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the accident was the result of vis major and beyond human control as it is the Claimant‟s case itself, that, the ill-fated vehicle fell into the river, having been hit by boulders falling from the hill, due to the earthquake, which crushed the vehicle. Besides, the Claimant failed to establish the rash and negligent act of the driver. Thus, the Appellant is not liable to pay the compensation claimed. That, the Respondent No.1 in fact ought to have filed