MACApp./376/2018
2022 Latest Caselaw 747 Gua

                                                                             Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010091632018




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
       (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh )

                   Case No: MACApp. 376/2018

      Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd..........................Appellant/Petitioner


                                  -Versus-
      Smti Parul Hazarika And 6 Ors..................................Respondents/claimants

:: BEFORE ::

              HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

            For the Appellant            :     Mr. K.K. Bhatta


            For the Respondents          :     Mr. R.C. Paul
                                               Mr. M. Dutta
            Date of Hearing              :     22.02.2022


           Date of delivery of
           Judgment and Order            :     03.03.2022
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/9



                             JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Reliance General

Insurance Co. Ltd as well as Mr. R.C. Paul and Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 filed by the

appellant Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd being aggrieved by the award of compensation

dated 15.02.2018 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 79/2014.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 18.03.2017 at about 08.30 P.M., Rana Jagadish

Hazarika the husband/son/father of the claimants (since deceased) was riding his motorcycle

bearing registration no. AS-05/E-4915 towards Thuramukh through N.H. 39 and on his arrival

near Indian Oil Depot, Rongajan, the motorcycle dashed against a stationary Heavy Goods

Vehicle (Trailer Truck) bearing registration no. NL-01/D-9074. As a result of the accident, the

rider of the motorcycle Rana Jagadish Hazarika sustained severe head injuries and died on

the spot. After the accident, he was shifted to Golaghat Civil Hospital, wherein his post-

mortem examination was performed.

4. After the accident one case was registered vide Golaghat P.S. Case No. 238/2014,

under Section 279/304(A) I.P.C. At the relevant time of the accident, the alleged offending

vehicle Trailer Truck was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd i.e. with the

appellant and the motorcycle of the deceased was also duly insured with Oriental Insurance

Company Limited.

5. The claimants are the heirs of the deceased Rana Jagadish Hazarika who died in the

vehicular accident, approached the learned MACT, Golaghat, claiming compensation Page No.# 3/9

amounting to Rs. 38,07,080/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Seven Thousand Eighty) only. After

completion of trial, the Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimants amounting

to Rs. 29,91,772/-(Rs. Twenty Nine Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two)

only. Hence, this appeal. But the undisputed facts are that the accident took place, the

deceased coming with a motorcycle dashed against a stationary truck which was insured with

the appellant.

6. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the

learned Member, MACT, Golaghat did not consider the evidence on record, which clearly

indicated that the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing no. AS-05E/4915, at the relevant

time of the accident. He dashed against a stationary trailer truck and as such, it was apparent

that he could have been avoided the accident, if he was cautious. So the accident was the

outcome of the negligence of the deceased himself and the truck in no manner was

responsible for the happening of the accident.

7. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that it was highly

improper to fasten the entire liability on insurer of the truck bearing no. NL-01D/9074 when

there was ample evidence before the Court that the deceased had also some contribution in

causing the accident. Hence, 50% be deducted from the awarded amount in respect of

contribution of the deceased towards the alleged accident.

8. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance

on some case laws:-

(i) Ramanna Vs. Rameez reported in 2018 ACJ 958,

(ii) Janti Das Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2018 Legal Eagle (Gau) 1122, Page No.# 4/9

(iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harbans Kaur reported in 2012 (3) TAC 669

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has argued that the

appellant/Insurance Company though pleaded contributory negligence, but they did not lead

any evidence before the Tribunal. Moreover, C.W.-2 Ganesh Baruah, eyewitness of the

accident in his evidence deposed that at the time of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle

drove his motorcycle in a normal speed. Hence, the contention of the insurance company that

deceased had contributed to the accident cannot be accepted.

It is further submitted that omission to take requisite care in the use of the vehicle by

its driver, amounts to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. The use of the vehicle

does not necessarily mean that the vehicle has to be in motion. The use of the vehicle may

be inferred even when it is stationary. It is also submitted that in the instant appeal, the

contention of the appellant is on mere presumption and surmises and therefore, there is no

scope for appreciation of the contention of the appellant by this Court and the appeal is liable

to be dismissed.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has placed reliance in support of his

submission on the following case laws:-

(i) Bipal Bashi Das Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2005 (3) GLT 407,

(ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pekhan Bala Das and Ors. reported in 2014(2) GLT 855,

(iii) Jiju Kuruvila and Others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166

11. The principles for considering negligence will have to be looked into normally that both Page No.# 5/9

the drivers should not have contributed to drive the vehicle in rash and negligent manner on

the touchstone of the principles to enunciate for deciding negligence. In the present case, to

prove the fact in question the eyewitness C.W.-2 was examined. Admittedly, the C.W.-1, who

is the wife of the deceased was not present when the accident took place.

12. C.W.-2, Ganesh Baruah deposed before the Tribunal that on the date of the accident at

about 8.30 P.M. he was standing in front of his house N.H. 39 (opposite to Indian Oil Depot).

He had seen that one motorcycle coming from Rangajan Tini-ali side towards Thuramukh

dashed back side of a stationary Heavy Goods vehicle Trailer Truck which was heading

towards Thuramukh. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle fell down and died on the spot.

After the accident, he went to the place of occurrence and could identify the deceased to be

Rana Jagadish Hazarika. This witness also stated that the rider of the motorcycle drove his

vehicle at a normal speed. On the other hand, the driver of the truck bearing no. NL-

01D/9074 was illegally parked his vehicle in night on the road at a 'No Parking" area of the

busy National Highway No. 39 without flashing any indicator/signal on the vehicle. This

witness also stated that he had not seen any barricade either in the form of tree branches or

stones etc. in front or backside of the trailer truck. As such, the accident occurred due to fault

of driver of the offending truck.

In his cross-examination, C.W. -2 replied that at the relevant time of the accident, the other

vehicles were plying on the road. On the day of the accident, there were three other trucks

stood on the place of the accident-one on the right side and two on the left side but he could

not see the numbers of the vehicles. It was suggested that the deceased drove the

motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle for which the

accident occurred.

Page No.# 6/9

13. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal and also the documents

available on the record of MAC Case No. 79/2014.

14. Learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence of the witnesses and the background of

the case on cited case law of Bipal Bashi Das (supra). In his judgment relying on the fact

that the question of compensation would, undoubtedly, arise only when the death or injury is

caused as a result of an accident arising out of rash and negligent use of the vehicle, but at

the same time, it also needs to be borne in mind that the use of the vehicle does not

necessarily mean that the vehicle has to be in motion. Far from this, the use of the vehicle

may be inferred even when it is stationary.

15. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the alleged offending vehicle was standing

on the road without showing any indicator. The deceased by riding the motorcycle dashed

against the said vehicle and died on the spot. There is no any dispute about the involvement

of the two vehicles in the accident and the present appellant and the respondent no. 7 are

the insurers of both the vehicles. It is to be noted that the claimant in his claim petition as

well as in his evidence, which is supported by one eyewitness (C.W.-2) has fully asserted that

the accident took place explicitly for the fault of the driver of the truck bearing no. NL

-01D/9074, which was standing on the middle of the road without showing any indicator or

signal. The deceased who was the owner-cum-driver of the motorcycle died when he hit

against the stationary truck. The accident took place at about 8.30 P.M. The police has

prosecuted driver of the stationary truck. The Tribunal has found that the accident occurred

on account of the negligence of the stationary truck only.

16. In the case of Ramanna (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was Page No.# 7/9

held that with regard to contributory negligence is concerned, the driver was not supposed to

park the lorry on the National Highway. In case of exigency, if the driver of the lorry is forced

to park the lorry on the National Highway, he has to put the indicators. No evidence has been

placed to show that the driver of the lorry had put on the indicators. In the very same

accident, the Tribunal has assessed the contributory negligence to an extent of 70% on the

part of driver of the lorry and 30% on the part of driver of the Omni car and the order of

Tribunal was upheld by the First Appellate Court.

17. Reverting back to the present case, the fact that a collision took place in which two

motor vehicles were involved is not in dispute. The question is whether the testimony of C.W.-

2 is acceptable as credible evidence to establish actionable negligence on the part of the diver

of the offending vehicle.

18. The complainant's statement indicates that she was not an eye-witness. But according

to her she had heard that her husband by riding the motorcycle dashed against a stationary

truck. Be that as it may, the offending vehicle was parked on the road which is not in dispute.

But there is no evidence that there were signs or indications in regard to the parking of the

offending vehicle on the road which ought to be normally found in such parked vehicles or

some kind of warning for parking of the vehicle. In addition, the driver of the offending

vehicle was not examined by the appellant/insurance company whose testimony would have

been the best piece of evidence over actionable negligence alleged against the deceased rider

of the motorcycle.

19. Even in the cross-examination of C.W. 2 nothing is elicited to show that the offending

vehicle was parked with any sign or indicator. Neither the driver nor the cleaner of the Page No.# 8/9

offending trailer truck was examined to show whether any sign or indication was provided

regarding parking of the vehicle.

It is needless to state that Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that:-

"Leaving Vehicles in dangerous position.- No person in charge of a motor vehicle shall

cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any public

place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to

cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the

passengers."

20. In similar circumstances, the High Court of Gujarat in Premlata Nilamchand

Sharma Vs. Hirabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel reported in 1983 ACJ 290 and the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana in Nirmal Bhutani Vs. Haryana State reported in 1983 ACJ

640 and Delhi High Court in Pushpa Rani Chopra Vs. Anokha Singh, reported in 1975

ACJ 396 held that where the place was dark and where the vehicle was parked without any

sign or indication to warn other Road users, the negligence is on the driver of the parked

vehicle and not the driver of any vehicle which dashes into such parked vehicle.

21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jumani Begum Vs. Ram Narayan reported in Civil

Appeal No. 9343 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 29254 of 2019) it was held that "Once

the substantive evidence before the MACT established that the truck trailer had been parked

on the road at night without any reflectors, we are of the view that there was no reason or

justification for the MACT to proceed on the basis of conjecture in arriving at a finding of

contributory negligence".

22. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, being satisfied in the facts and Page No.# 9/9

circumstances that the driver of the parked truck was alone to be blamed as he was parked

the trailer truck in the public road without any sign or indication for other road users, I am of

the view that the Tribunal in MAC Case No. 79/2014 has rightly passed the judgement in

placing the blame on the driver of the trailer truck. The actionable negligence is palpable

against the driver of the offending trailer truck.

23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Judgment and award passed by the learned

MACT, Golaghat dated 15.02.2018 is upheld.

24. Statutory amount in deposit be refunded accordingly.

25. LCR be returned back.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant