Gauhati High Court
M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smti Himakhi Singha Sutradhar And ... on 24 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010050682018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./314/2018
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD , CHENNAI 600014
WITH ONE OF ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD , CHRISTIANBASTI ,
GUWAHATI- 5, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL, MANAGER.
VERSUS
SMTI HIMAKHI SINGHA SUTRADHAR AND 5 ORS
W/O .SRI BUJU SUTRADHAR,
R/O. VILL. ABHAYAPURI, NORTH SALMARA, DIST. BONGAIGAON,
ASSAM ,
2:M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON CO. LTD.
NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE. NEW BONGAIGAON
P.O. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON -783380 ASSAM.(OWNER OF VEH.NO.AS-
19/C-0445)
4:NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO .LTD
BONGAIGAON
CHAPAGURI ROAD
NORTH BONGAIGAON P.O. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON -783380 ASSAM .
(INSURER OF VEH.NO AS. 23/J-8600)
5:SRI DEEPAK KR JAIN
S.R. LOHIA ROAD (CENTRAL BANK ROAD ) P.O. AND DIST. TINSUKIA-
786125 ASSAM (OWNER OF VEH. NO. AS-23/J-8600)
6:SRI ARUN AGARWAL
S/O S.R. AGARWAL
PARBBATIA KISTO GARAGE
Page No.# 2/4
TINSUKIA
P.O.AND DIST. TINSUKIA -786125 ASSAM. (DRIVER OF VEH. NO.AS- 23/J-
8600
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N SARKAR (R2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
JUDGMENT
Date : 24-02-2022
Heard Mr. K.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also
heard Ms. M. Choudhury and Mr. S.C. Biswas appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the
Judgment and Award dated 21.12.2017 passed by the MACT, Bongaigaon in MAC
Case No. 40/2013.
3. On 02.12.2012, the appellant, her father and her husband were travelling in a
Matiz car bearing regd. No.As-19/8468. They were travelling from Digboy to
Dibrugarh. When they reached near Ananda Bag T.E., one truck bearing regd. As-19-
C/0445 had hit the Matiz car from behind. The car was driven by the father of the
respondent. Because of the said incident, the car lost control and it hit another
Scorpio car bearing regd. As-23/J/8600. In the said accident, the father of the
respondent instantly died. Other occupancy of the car also sustained serious injuries.
4. The respondent filed a claim petition before the tribunal seeking compensation
on account of the medical expenses incurred by her during her treatment. The
insurance company contested the claim petition by filing the written statement.
5. On the basis of the pleading of both sides, the tribunal framed the following
4(four) issues:-
i. Whether Motor Vehicle No. AS-19/C-0445 and AS-23/J-8600 were involved in
the said accident, if so, whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent
Page No.# 3/4
driving of the driver of the said vehicle?
ii. Whether the claimant Smti. Himakshi Singh Sutradhar sustained bodily injuries in
motor vehicle accident due to hit by or by travelling in the vehicle No.AS-19/C-445
and As-23/J-8600?
iii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so, to what extend
and by whom it is payable?
iv. Whether the claimant Smt. Himakshi Singha Sutradhar sustained bodily
injuries in motor vehicle accident due to used/ travelling I the vehicle No.AS-19-8468?
6. The respondent examined herself and her husband as witnesses. The appellant
did not examine any witnesses. Finally on the basis of the record, the tribunal held
that the vehicle bearing regd. As-19/C-0445 was negligent and directed the
appellant insurance com. to the pay of Rs.4,83,000/- along with 6% per annum to the
calculated from the filing the claim application.
7. Mr. Dey submits that in the said accident three vehicles were involved and the
tribunal committed error while holding the vehicle No. As-19/C-0445 to be negligent.
8. Per contra, Ms. Choudhury submits that the oral evidence of the respondent
remained unimpeached. Ms. Choudhury further submits that even in the police
charge-sheet the said vehicle was held guilty.
9. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides.
10. There is clear evidence that the vehicle No. As-19/C-0445 had hit the Matiz car
from behind and the said car lost control and it hit another vehicle. The
appellant/insurance company did not examine any witnesses to prove its case.
11. This Court is of the opinion that the learned tribunal correctly appreciated the
evidence on record and arrived at a correct finding. The appeal is found to be
devoid of merit. The appellant being the insurer of the vehicle As-19/C-0445, is liable
to pay the compensation, as calculated by the tribunal, to the respondent.
Page No.# 4/4
12. The appeal stands dismissed.
Send back the LCR
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
