United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs Renu Bhuyan Adhikary And 7 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3474 Gua

                                                            Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010009682019




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

                       Case No.: I.A.(Civil)/2734/2022

         UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT WHITES ROAD
         CHENNAI AND ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES KNOWN AS GUWAHATI
         REGIONAL OFFICE
         G.S. ROAD
         BHANGAGARH
         GUWAHATI-5


          VERSUS

         MRS RENU BHUYAN ADHIKARY AND 7 ORS
         W/O- LATE SATYENDRA NATH BHUYAN
         PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL.- BILASIPARA
         WARD NO. 5
         P.S. BILASIPARA
         DIST.- DHUBRI
         ASSAM
         PIN- 783348 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KHANAMUKH
         P.S. JALUKBARI
         DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM
         PIN- 781013

         2:MISS KASTURI BHUYAN
         D/O- LATE SATYENDRA NATH BHUYAN

         PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL.- BILASIPARA
         WARD NO. 5
         P.S. BILASIPARA
         DIST.- DHUBRI
         ASSAM
         PIN- 783348 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KHANAMUKH
         P.S. JALUKBARI
                                                             Page No.# 2/7

DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781013.
3:SRI BHARGAV BHUYAN
S/O- LATE SATYENDRA NATH BHUYAN

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL.- BILASIPARA
WARD NO. 5
P.S. BILASIPARA
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783348 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KHANAMUKH
P.S. JALUKBARI
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781013.
4:HIREMBA KALITA
S/O- NILAKANTA KALITA

R/O- VILL.- BHATAPARA
P.S. CHAYGAON
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781124. (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-01-G-5337 (MARUTI CAR).
5:SANJIB RABHA
S/O- SATISH CH. RABHA

R/O- VILL.- BAMUNIGAON
P.S. CHHAYGAON
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781124. (DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-01-G-5337 (MARUTI CAR).
6:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

BONGAIGAON BRANCH
 INSURER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-17-E-1666 (SWIFT DZIRE) POLICY NO.
31260031140101971047 VALID UPTO 29/09/2015. (INSURER OF VEHICLE NO.
AS-17-E-1666 (SWIFT).
 7:VEHICLE NO. AS-17-E-1666 (SWIFT DZIRE).
OWNER OF THE VEHICLE OWNED BY LATE SATYENDRA NATH BHUYAN
(SINCE DECEASED).
 8:ASAFUR AHMED
S/O- AFIZUDDIN AHMED

VILL.- BORUAJHAR
P.O. HAKAMA
P.S. BILASIPARA
DIST.- DHUBRI
                                                                         Page No.# 3/7

           ASSAM
           PIN- 783348. (DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-17-E-1666 (SWIFT).
           ------------

Advocate for : MR. R K BHATRA Advocate for : MD A S ALI appearing for MRS RENU BHUYAN ADHIKARY AND 7 ORS

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

12.09.2022

Heard Mr. R. K. Bhatra, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Mannaf, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

This is an application for stay of the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2018 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup in MAC Case No.980/2015 thereby awarding a sum of Rs.57,40,200/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of cross- examination of PW4, i.e. 23.02.2018, till payment.

The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that based upon an enquiry report, it has come to the notice of the appellant/applicant that it is a case where the vehicle which was insured with the appellant/applicant was planted in order to fraudulently saddle the liability upon the appellant/applicant. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that in the GD Entry, there was only an information that a four wheeler car had met with an accident at NH31 and there was no mention whatsoever as regards the involvement of another vehicle in the said accident. Further to that, the learned counsel for the Page No.# 4/7

appellant/applicant, drawing the attention of this Court on the spot verification being made wherein it was noted down that the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-17-E-1666 (Swift Dezire) while coming back from Bilasipara to Guwahati, due to some technical problem, got rolled on NH31 in Mahish Bathan for which caused serious injuries to the driver and the owner of the car and immediately rushed to Chapar PHC. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, referring to the report submitted by the Investigator dated 14.05.2018, stated that the investigation so carried out by the Investigator it has come to light that the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-17-E1666 had fallen down in turning automatically due to rash and negligent driving by the driver and no other vehicle was involved in the said accident. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant further submits that the owner of the vehicle No.AS-01G-5337 is a well known MAC Case agent and he made his vehicle involved to some cases to take away the benefit from the insurance company. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that this is a fit case where the entire awarded amount is liable to be stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

On the other hand, Mr. A. Mannaf, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that charge-sheet was duly exhibited before the court below wherein the Investigating Officer had submitted the opinion as regards the involvement of the car bearing registration No.AS-01G-5337. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the impugned judgment was passed on 06.07.2018. There was no mention in the written statement or even in the evidence of the appellant before the Tribunal as regards all these aspects. The learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that even on perusal of the report it would seen that on Page No.# 5/7

14.05.2018, the report was submitted which was even prior to the judgment being pronounced by the Tribunal, and as such, the appellant/applicant ought to have placed the same before the Tribunal if they wished. Further to that, referring to the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC filed by the applicant, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that there is no mention whatsoever that they want to adduce additional evidence as regards the persons from whom the Investigator could gather the information. There is also no mention whatsoever either in the Appeal Memo or in the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC as regards the alleged cases wherein the owner of the vehicle Hiramba Kalita was involved in other cases. The learned counsel for the claimants, therefore, submits that the report which is being submitted and the appeal so filed on the basis thereof is nothing but a clever ruse on the part of the appellant/applicant to deprive the claimants of their legitimate compensation to which they are entitled as per law. The learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that on a perusal of the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC it would be seen that the MVI report was also not sought to be brought on record by way of an additional evidence which also forms the basis of the report. The learned counsel for the claimants, therefore, submits that this is a case wherein there should not be any stay as regards the compensation awarded.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the materials on record. On the specific query being made to the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant as to when the applicant appointed the Investigator, the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that the applicant had appointed the Investigator sometime in the year 2015, Page No.# 6/7

i.e. immediately after the receipt of the summons in the MAC case in question, and more particularly, on 16.07.2015. Further to that, upon asking the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant as to whether the GD Entry, the FIR as well as the search and seizure report could have been adduced as evidence before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant fairly submits that the same could have been adduced as evidence as the copies of the said documents could have been taken from the concerned authority.

Perusal of the report also shows that it was dated 14.05.2018, prior to the judgment pronounced by the Tribunal. However, there was no endeavour made on the part of the appellant/applicant to bring it to the notice of the Tribunal about the investigation report and the materials found therein. There was also no attempt on the part of the appellant/applicant to adduce the evidence of persons from whom the Investigator got the knowledge about the accident as alleged in his report. There was no attempt also on the part of the appellant/applicant to bring on record the MVI report or to bring on record that the owner of the vehicle No.AS-01G-5337 is involved in some cases to take away the benefit of insurance as alleged in the record.

Taking into consideration the same, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if 50% of the awarded amount along with interest is deposited before the Registry of this Court within 6 (six) weeks from today.

Accordingly, this Court stays the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2018 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup in MAC Case No.980/2015 subject to deposit of 50% of the said amount Page No.# 7/7

along with interest before the Registry of this Court within 6 (six) weeks from today.

The claimants shall be entitled to file appropriate application before the Registry and withdraw the said amount subject to furnishing of Indemnity Bond.

The observations made hereinabove are tentative and only for consideration of the stay application. The instant observations shall not prejudice the applicant in appeal hearing.

In view of the above, the I.A. stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant