Tata Aig General Insurance ... vs Smti Puja Paul And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1197 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010134052017




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

                              Case No. : MACApp./354/2017

            TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK,
            NICOLAS PIRAMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, GANPATRAO KADAM MARG,
            MUMBAI 4000013 AND ZONAL OFFICE AT CONSTANTIA COMMERCIAL
            COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, 11 DR. U.N. BRAHMACHARI STREET, KOLKATA
            700017



            VERSUS

            SMTI PUJA PAUL and 3 ORS
            W/O LATE RAJIB PAUL

            2:MISS PREETY PAUL
             D/O LATE RAIB PAUL

            3:SMTI PRAVA PAUL
            W/O SRI BISWANATH PAUL

            4:BISWANATH PAUL
             F/O LATE RAJIB PAUL
            ALL ARE THE R/O VILL. ANAND NAGAR
             BYE LANE 5
             H/NO-4
             GUWAHATI-5
             P.O. DISPUR
             DIST. KAMRUP
            ASSAM. RESPONDENT NOS. 2 BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY THEIR
            LEGAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.R GOSWAMI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.N CHOUDHURY
                                                              Page No.# 2/5




Linked Case : CO/30/2017

SMTI PUJA PAUL and 3 ORS
W/O LATE RAJIB PAUL

2: MISS PREETY PAUL

D/O LATE RAJIB PAUL

3: SMTI PRAVA PAUL
W/O SRI BISWANATH PAUL

4: BISWANATH PAUL

FATHER OF THE VICTIM
ALL ARE R/O ANAND NAGAR
 BYE LANE NO. 5
 HOUSE NO. 4
 P.O. DISPUR
 P.S. DISPUR
 GUWAHATI-5
 DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM
APPLICANT NO. 2 BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
NATURAL GUARDIAN APPLICANT NO. 1
VERSUS

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK
NICOLAS PIRAMAL TOWER
9TH FLOOR
GANPATRAO KADAM MARG
MUMBAI
PIN 400013 AND ZONAL OFFICE AT CONSTANTIA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
2ND FLOOR 11
DR. U.N. BRAHMACHARI STREET
KOLKATA 700017


------------

Advocate for : MR.P MAHANTA Advocate for : MS.M SAIKIA appearing for TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE LTD Page No.# 3/5

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

JUDGMENT AND ORDER 04.04.2022

Hear Mr. R. Goswami, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Mahanta, learned Counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 31.03.2015 passed by the MACT No. 3, Kamrup, in MAC Case No. 589/2012.

3. On 08.01.2012, the deceased was travelling in a Santro car bearing registration no. AS-01-AE-0426. At about 6 AM, the vehicle met with an accident and because of the injuries sustained by him, he expired. Therefore, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal.

4. The Insurance Company contested the case by filing a written statement.

5. The Tribunal framed two issues upon the pleadings of the parties. They read as under:

(i) Whether the victim (late) Rajib Paul died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 08.01.2012 involving vehicle no. AS-01-AE-0426 (Santro, Xing RLX) and whether the said accident took place due to under use and involvement of the said vehicle (sic.)?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation, and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite party, the said compensation amount will be payable (sic.)?

6. The respondent examined one witness. The Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence.

Page No.# 4/5

7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,73,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

8. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal that the claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act of 1988. Even in the prayer portion of the claim petition, it has been stated that the compensation was paid for under the second schedule of the M.V. Act of 1988.

9. The learned counsel Mr. Goswami has submitted that the impugned judgment has deviated from the mandate of law under Section 163 A of the MV Act. Mr. Goswami has further submitted that now, according to the Notification issued by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, in case of a fatal accident, the compensation shall be Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only under sub Section 163 A of the M.V. Act.

10. I have also heard the learned counsel Mr. P. Mahanta, appearing for the respondents.

11. On a thorough reading of the claim petition, it is clear on the face of the record that the claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act not under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The claimants/respondents pray before the Tribunal to award compensation according to the second schedule of the M.V. Act, 1988.

12. Therefore, the claim case is under section 163 A of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal erroneously held the annual income of the deceased at Rs.54,000/- whereas the statutory limit for income is Rs.40,000/- only.

13. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only as compensation. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly to that extent.

14. The appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

15. In the light of the aforesaid observation, the cross objection is also disposed of Page No.# 5/5

accordingly.

16. The appeal along with the cross objection is disposed of.

17. The LCR be returned.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant