The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Sri Jatindra Nath Deka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1408 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010222862017




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

                                Case No. : MACApp./472/2017

            THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
            A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT
            GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007, REP. BY THE
            ASSISTANT MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI,
            GUWAHATI-781007



            VERSUS

            SRI JATINDRA NATH DEKA and ANR
            S/O LATE ADITYA CH. DEKA, VILLAGE-JANIGOG, PS-NALBARI, DIST.
            NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-7781334

            2:SRI JATINDRA NATH SARMA
             S/O SRI JAGANNATH SARMA
            VILLAGE- DAKHINGAON
             PS-NALBARI
            ASSAM
             PIN-78135

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS.R D MOZUMDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N D BHUYAN
                                                                             Page No.# 2/4




                                 BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                      ORDER

MAC Appeal No. 472/2017 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ..... Appellant

-versus-

Sri Jatindra Nath Deka and Ors.

...Respondents

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Appellant : Ms. R. D. Mozumdar Advocate.

               For the Respondents          :        Mr. N. D. Bhuyan
                                                    Advocate.
               Date of Hearing                  :    25.03.2022
               Date of Judgment                 :     28.04.2022

                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER

28.04.2022

Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel representing the appellant as well as Mr. N. D. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) against the Judgment and Award dated 24.05.2017 passed by the MACT No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1819/2010.

3. On 03.09.2009, a maruti car bearing registration no. AS-01AG-0545 coming from Page No.# 3/4

the direction of Nalbari towards Guwahati knocked down the respondent no. 1 from backside. The respondent no. 1 sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the claim petition was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation.

4. The appellant contested the case by filing a written statement having routine pleadings.

5. The owner-cum-driver of the maruti car did not contest the case.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed two issues and they are as follows:

(i) Whether the claimant sustained injuries in the alleged road accident dated 03.09.2009 involving vehicle no. AS-01-AG-0545 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent?

7. The respondent no. 1 examined himself and the Insurance Company/appellant also examined one witness.

8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the evidence on affidavit i.e. 11.07.2016. It was explained by the Tribunal that because of the conduct of the respondent no. 1, the disposal of the claim petition was delayed.

9. The appellant submitted that the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle had violated the policy conditions and, therefore, he should have been held liable for paying the compensation. It has been submitted that the Driving License No. 1088/NB/98/Pvt. was not issued in the name of the driver.

10. The Tribunal held that since the vehicle was insured by the appellant, therefore, the Insurance Company/appellant cannot escape its liability to pay compensation.

11. The appellate/Insurance Company has examined one witness to prove that there was a violation of policy condition as because the owner-cum-driver did not Page No.# 4/4

have a valid license. Ext. B is the document, which disclosed that the respondent no. 2 i.e. the owner-cum-driver did not have a license, rather the license relied upon by the respondent no. 1/claimant was issued to one Sachindra Sarma. Thus, the breach of policy condition has been established by the appellant/Insurance Company.

12. In spite of the aforesaid fact, since there was a valid insurance policy, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation. However, in that case, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the compensation from the owner.

13. Under the said premised reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation and thereafter the Insurance Company shall have the liberty to recover the money from the owner of the vehicle.

14. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant