Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajesh Narah @ Sanju Narah And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 806 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010019782020




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

                                  Case No. : MACApp./18/2020

            ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE A 25/27 ASAF ALI
            ROAD, NEW DELHI 110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7,
            REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER.



            VERSUS

            RAJESH NARAH @ SANJU NARAH and 2 ORS,
            S/O SRI AMESWAR NARAH, R/O NO. 2 MIRIPATHAR, P.S. RANGAPARA,
            DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM,PIN-784103

            2:BAPPA BHATTACHARJEE
             C/O NET WORK TRAVELS
             GUWAHATI
             PALTAN BAZAR
             DIST. KAMRUP M
            ASSAM
             PIN

Advocate for the Petitioner   :

Advocate for the Respondent :
                                                                              Page No.# 2/4




                                  BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                      JUDGMENT

07.03.2022

Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents.

2. For an amount of only Rs.18,970/-, the appellant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) against the Judgment and Award dated 17.01.2015 passed by the MACT, Sonitpur in MAC Case No. 176/2012 .

3. On 19.03.2012, at about 11.30 PM, the respondent was travelling in a motorcycle bearing no. AS-12G-3098. He collided with an incoming bus bearing registration no. NL-05-B-0971. The respondent sustained injuries because of the said accident.

4. Because of the said accident, the Jamuguri P.S. Case No. 29/2012 was registered. After investigation, Police found that the injured respondent was drunk and because of his negligence, he had collided with the aforesaid bus. Police filed the necessary final report.

5. Be that as it may, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

6. The owner and the driver of the bus had jointly contested the claim case and stated before the Tribunal that the bus is covered by a valid insurance policy.

7. The appellant/ insurance company denied the allegation that the accident took place because of the negligence of the bus.

8. Upon the pleadings of both sides, the Tribunal framed the following two issues:

Page No.# 3/4

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle number NL-05B-0971 (super bus) on 19.03.2012 at about 11.30 PM on 52 NH near Jiabharali Forest Gate resulting in injury to Sri Rajesh Narah?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount is payable?

9. The claimant/respondent examined himself as a witness in order to prove his case. On the other hand, the appellant examined the its investigator.

10. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.18,970/-, including no fault liability, as compensation.

11. The learned counsel Ms. Choudhury has submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that Police investigated the case and found that the respondent /claimant was negligent and there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver.

12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

13. Regarding the finding of the final report, the Tribunal agreed with the respondent that the final report filed by the police has no consequence in the power of the Tribunal.

14. There is no doubt that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals decide claim cases independently. The Tribunals are not bound by police reports. They sometimes just lend help to the Tribunals to arrive at a judicious decision. But the Tribunal cannot depend only on such police reports.

15. I have already mentioned hereinbefore that for a small sum of Rs.18,970/- the parties are litigating for about two years. This is the reason why this court is not inclined to go for a detailed discussion of the merit of the case. There is no denial that at the time of the accident, there was a valid insurance policy of the bus. The respondent is Page No.# 4/4

a third party and he sustained injury because of the collision with the bus. Therefore, the insurance company cannot escape the liability to pay compensation to the respondent.

16. The learned Tribunal correctly appreciated the provisions of law as well as the evidence and arrived at a correct finding.

17. Therefore, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

18. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant