Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010120362015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./189/2015
SMT NIRU SAIKIA
W/O LATE GOLAP SAIKIA, OF VILL. KHATERGAON, P.O. NANOI, P.S. and
DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
SRI RANJIT NATH and ANR
S/O SRI PULESH NATH, OF VILL. LUNGOUNG GAON, P.S. KAMPUR, DIST.
NAGAON, ASSAM OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
2:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
OF CHATRIBARI
PARMESWARI BUILDING
CHATRIBARI ROAD
GHY-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P BARMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R C PAUL (R2)
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
JUDGMENT
07.03.2022 Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the MACT, Nagaon, in MAC Case No. 249/2006.
3. On 26.03.2006, at about 7 PM, the deceased was driving a vehicle bearing number AS-01Y-5127, after it was hired by some unknown persons. Those persons were also travelling in the said vehicle and they were going towards Changjurai Potiapam Reserved Forest for loading vegetables. On the way, the deceased and one handyman travelling in the same vehicle were killed. The nearby villagers managed to apprehend two of the miscreants. Upon the said incident, the Jamunamukh P.S. Case No. 5 of 2006 was registered.
4. The legal heirs of the deceased driver had filed a claimed petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
5. The respondent/Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing a written statement denying all the pleadings of the appellants.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the claim petition is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
vehicle number AS-01Y-5127 (mobile pick-up van)?
(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation and if so, to what extent and who is liable to pay the same?
Page No.# 3/3
(iv) To what relief/reliefs are the parties entitled.
7. The claimants examined three witnesses. The respondent/insurance company did not examine any witness. On the basis of the evidence on-record and on the basis of the ratio laid down in Rita Devi and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 113, the Tribunal held that the death of the deceased is an accidental murder. Even then, the Tribunal held that since the annual income of the deceased was claimed to be Rs.48,000/- the claimants are not entitled to compensation under Section 163 (A) of the M.V. Act. Hence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides.
9. In Rita Devi (supra), the deceased was a driver of an auto rikshaw which was used for hire by passengers. Some unknown passengers hired the autorikshaw and, thereafter, the deadbody of the driver was discovered and the auto rikshaw was missing. The Supreme Court has held that on the basis of a conjoint reading of Section 163 (A) (1) and 163 (A) 2 is sufficient to hold that the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company of the vehicle, because the death arose out of the use of the vehicle.
10. In view of the law laid in Rita Devi (supra), the view taken by the Tribunal is found to be not sustainable in law. The claimants are entitled to compensation because of the death of the deceased. The appeal is allowed.
11. The impugned order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the MACT, Nagaon, in MAC Case No. 249/2006 is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for passing a fresh judgment in the light of the observations made herein before.
11. Send back the LCR.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant