Gauhati High Court
Md Suman Ahmed vs Sri Nitai Chandra Tarapdar And 2 ... on 27 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010005142016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./205/2018
MD SUMAN AHMED
S/O LATE FAZIR ALI, R/O SARUMOTORIA, WARD NO. 51, P.O. DISPUR, DIST.
KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
SRI NITAI CHANDRA TARAPDAR and 2 ORS
S/O NIKHIL TARAPDAR, R/O MALIGAON, P.S. JALUKBARI, P.O.
JALUKBARI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
2:MD. KASHIM SAIKIA (DRIVER)
S/O MD. SAFAT ALI
R/O VILL. SIMILA
MOHARIPARA
P.S. GARESWAR
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
3:THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. N.T. ROAD BRANCH
NALBARI
BONGAIGAON DIVISIONAL OFFICE
P.O. AND DIST. NALBAR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. E AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S C BISWAS
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
27.05.2022
Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel representing the appellant as well as Mr. S. C.
Biswas, 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 02.07.2016 passed by the MACT
No. 1, Kamrup (M) in MAC Case No. 1846/2009.
3. On 14.05.2009, at about 3.20 PM, late Namita Tarapdar along with her son was
travelling in a motorcycle bearing registration no. AS-01Z-1383 towards Baihata
Chariali. When they reached Changsari, a bus bearing registration no. AS-01-BC-5330,
which was travelling in the same direction knocked the motorcycle bearing no. AS-
01Z-1383. As a result of the said incident, late Namita Tarapdar sustained injury and
she instantly died.
4. A claim petition was filed seeking compensation. The owner of the bus bearing
registration no. AS-01-BC-5330 contested the claim case by filing a written statement.
He has pleaded that his vehicle was insured under the New India Assurance
Company Ltd.
5. The said insurance company was contested the case by filing written statement
and claimed that the insurer of the motorcycle was not made a party in the claim
case and therefore the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:-
Page No.# 3/4
i) Whether the claimant Nitai Tarapdar, husband of the deceased, claimed
for death of his wife in the alleged accident dated 14.05.2009 at about
3.20 PM under the jurisdiction of Changsari (OP), Kamalpur Police Station
involving vehicle no. AS-01-BC-5330 (709 bus) and whether the said
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending vehicle?
ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and if yes,
to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said
compensation amount will be payable?
7. The claimant, owner and the insurance company had examined witnesses.
Finally, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.7,42,000/- along with interest @6%
per annum from the date of filing of the application. The Tribunal directed the owner
of the bus bearing registration no. AS-01-BC-5330 to pay the compensation.
8. I have heard the learned counsels for both sides at length.
9. The present appeal has been filed that the bus bearing registration no. AS-01-
BC-5330 had a valid insurance policy and the Tribunal has erroneously directed the
owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation because the Tribunal should have
directed the insurance company to pay the compensation.
10. I have gone through the impugned judgment.
11. The insurance policy of the bus bearing registration no. AS-01-BC-5330 was valid
from 14.05.2009 to 13.05.2010. According to the owner, he paid the premium at about
10.30 AM on 14.05.2009 for renewing the insurance policy. The accident took place at
about 3.20 PM on 14.05.2009.
12. The insurance company has examined one witness, named, Gautam
Bhattacharjee. He has stated in his evidence that the insurance policy of the bus
bearing registration no. AS-01-BC-5330 was effective from 04.15 PM of 14.05.2009 to
the midnight of 13.05.2010. Therefore, prior to 4.15 PM of 14.05.2009 there was no
insurance coverage.
Page No.# 4/4
13. In order to buttress his argument, Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant
has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Dayal and others, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 680. In this
judgment, it has been held that even if the insurance policy is obtained on the date
of the accident , the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
14. It is a settled position of law that if an insurance policy is purchased on any day,
that insurance policy becomes effective from the previous midnight. Therefore, the
offending vehicle was duly covered by the insurance policy.
15. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the learned tribunal has erroneously
exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation.
16. Under the given circumstances of the case, the insurance company is liable to
pay the compensation. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.
17. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 02.07.2016 passed by the MACT
No. 1, Kamrup (M) in MAC Case No. 1846/2009 is modified and the New India
Assurance Company Limited is directed to pay the compensation in terms of the
impugned judgment.
18. Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
