United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Suphia Khatun And 3 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1002 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010198952010




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : MACApp./77/2010

            UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
            A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
            ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, MADRAS
            AND A REGIONAL OFFICE AT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-5



            VERSUS

            SUPHIA KHATUN and 3 ORS,
            W/O LATE HASMAT ALI, VILL. CHAKIBHITAA, MOUZA BETBARI, P.S. and
            DIST. BARPETA.

            2:ABALA KANTA DAS

             S/O LATE LAKHRI SINGH
             RESIDING AT SUNDARIDIA
             MOUZA and DIST. BARPETA.

            3:SMTI JAMUNA BALA DAS

             C/O ABALA KANTA DAS
             BB ROAD
             BARPETA OWNER OF THE VEHICLE ASZ 4095

            4:PRADIP KUMAR DAS

             S/O LATE KESHAB DAS
             PASCHIM PALANGDIHATI
             BARPETA DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE ASZ 409

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.S DUTTA

Advocate for the Respondent : DR. B AHMED
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/4




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                           ORDER

Date : 16-03-2021

Heard Ms. I. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M. Hoque, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2) The instant appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MV Act") challenging the Judgment and award dated 26.05.2008, in MAC Case No. 72(B)/1989, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta, Assam.

3) On 29.08.1989, the husband of the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. ASZ-4095. He was going to Barpeta along with other passengers of the vehicle. At about 9.30 pm, there was a bomb blast inside the vehicle and the husband of the claimant died because of the injury sustained in the bomb blast. Notice has been issued to the owner, the driver and the conductor of the vehicle and to the Insurance Company of the bus. The owner and the driver filed written statement in a stereo type manner that the said petition was not maintainable and denied that there was no negligence on their part. The owner claim that his vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company and the Policy was valid w.e.f 04.12.1988 to 03.12.1989.

4) The conductor of the bus did not appear and the case against him proceeded ex-parte.

5) The Insurance Company contested the case and pleaded stereo type claims.

6) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following four issues:

Page No.# 3/4

(i) Whether the claim petition is maintainable in the present form?

(ii) Whether the claimant's husband died due to motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.08.1989 by the vehicle No. ASZ-4095?

(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation and if so to what extent?

(iv) Whether the owner of the vehicle had valid Ins. Policy at the material time of accident? If so, whether the Ins. Co. is liable to pay compensation as claimed by the claimant?

7) The claimant examined herself only. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence.

8) On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,57000/- only.

9) I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties.

10) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that they are not liable to indemnify the insured as the Insurance Policy did not cover the said risk.

11) I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

12) The Judgment of the Tribunal is based on the decision of this Court that was rendered in Bipal Bashi Das -Vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr, reported in 2005 (3 GLT) 407. This Court held that death of the deceased was caused because use of the vehicle. In a similarly situated situation this Court has held that the deceased died in an accident due Page No.# 4/4

to extremists attack, where the dominant intention of the extremists was not to kill an individual in particular and therefore, it is not a case of murder and therefore, the death due to the bomb blast in the vehicle is covered under the MV Act and the claimant in such case is entitled to get compensation.

13) Considering the aforesaid facts, I find that there is no illegality or impropriety in the award passed by the Tribunal. Such an award does not require any interference in this Court.

Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.

Send back the LCR immediately.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant