Gauhati High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Chandralekha Barman And 3 Ors on 26 October, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010041512021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./56/2021
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING, 87, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI- 400001 AND
REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-5, REP. BY THE CHIEF
REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
CHANDRALEKHA BARMAN AND 3 ORS.
W/O- LATE PRODYUT BARMAN, R/O- VILL.- LANTUGRAM, P.O. DHOLAI
BAZAR, P.S. DHOLAI, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM.
2:MISS PRAGATI BARMAN
D/O- LATE PRODYUT BARMAN
R/O- VILL.- LANTUGRAM
P.O. DHOLAI BAZAR
P.S. DHOLAI
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM. (RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REP. BY RESPONDENT NO. 1).
3:SMTI. KANAKLATA BARMAN
W/O- LATE MOHAN BARMAN
R/O- VILL.- LANTUGRAM
P.O. DHOLAI BAZAR
P.S. DHOLAI
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM.
4:ALTAF UDDIN AHMED
S/O- ALIM UDDIN AHMED
CENTRAL ROAD
P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR
Page No.# 2/3
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM. (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-01/EC-7494 (NIGHT SUPER BUS)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 26-10-2021
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the leaned senior counsel appearing for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
no. 1, 2 and 3.
This is an appeal u/s 173 of the MV Act, 1988 whereby the judgment and award
dated 30.01.2020, passed by the learned Member, MACT Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case
No. 1362/2016 is put under challenge.
The appeal is primarily based on two points namely :
i) The vehicle bearing No. AS-01/EC-7494 had the permit to ply
from Guwahati (ISBT) to Jirighat (Cachar) via Meghalaya. But the vehicle
veered off the permitted route. Infact the vehicle went to Silchar town
and thus, it is a violation of the permit
ii) The interest was illegally awarded upon future prospect.
Mr. Choudhury has conceded to the second ground and agreed with the
appellant, that the interest upon the future prospect is against the law.
I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties at length. Upon the issue
pertaining to violation of permit, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has to be
dealt with keeping in mind that this is a beneficial legislation. A person below 40 years
of age and who was a permanent Government employee died because of an accident
Page No.# 3/3
involving the present vehicle. The vehicle was permitted to ply between Guwahati
(ISBT) and Jirighat (Cachar District) but the vehicle veered away from the said
permitted path and went up to Silchar, where the accident took place.
In my considered opinion and keeping in view the legislative intend, the
aforesaid act of the vehicle does not provide a good ground to have an adverse
opinion which might affect the claimant. Therefore, this Court hereby holds that the
issue of violation of permit is not a good ground to challenge the validity of the
judgment of the Tribunal.
Therefore, the first point raise by the appellant is rejected.
The second point is conceded by the respondents. Imposing interest upon
future prospect does not have the sanction of law. Therefore, the respondents have
rightly conceded to the point raised by the Insurance Company. This Court hereby
directs that there shall be no interest upon the future prospect.
Accordingly appeal is partly allowed.
With the aforesaid observation the MACT, Silchar is directed to do a fresh
calculation in the light of the observation made here in before and shall pass an order
stating the amount of compensation which the Insurance Company is liable to pay to
the claimant.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
