Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Suchil Teron on 5 June, 2024
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010003332017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./10/2018
MOMOTAZ BEGUM @ MOMTAZ BEGUM
R/O VILL. SANTOSHPUR, P.O. TILAPARA, P.S. CHAPAR
2: ILIAS ALI
R/O VILL. SANTOSHPUR
P.O. TILAPARA
P.S. CHAPAR
3: IBRAHIM ALI
R/O VILL. SANTOSHPUR
P.O. TILAPARA
P.S. CHAPA
VERSUS
SUCHIL TERON
VILL. PAMAHI, P.O. AND P.S. GARCHUK (OWNER OF OFFENDING
VEHICLE)
2:SALAM ALI
VILL. SARAIMARI
P.O. AND P.S. SOALKUCHI
P.S. DISPUR (DRIVER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE)
3:THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. OF GORBHANGA MICRO BRANCH
GUWAHAT
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
05.06.2024
Heard Ms. A Begum, learned counsel for the appellant.
None appears for the respondent no. 3 Insurance Company.
The Office Note dated 22.09.2023 shows that the notice on the respondent no. 1 was
received by his wife. Therefore, service of notice on the respondent no. 1 is complete.
Ms. Begum has submitted that considering the nature of the appeal, name of the
respondent no. 2 can be struck off from the title page of the memo of appeal. Therefore,
name of the respondent no. 2 be struck off from the title page of the memo of appeal at
the risk of the appellant.
This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the Judgment
dated 20.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC No. 3, Kamrup
(M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1745/2012.
In a motor accident on 19.04.2011, one person lost his life. His wife and two children had
jointly filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation.
Witnesses were examined by the claimants. But there was no evidence alleging rash and
negligent driving by the connected vehicle.
Referring to Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal held that the claimants failed to
establish that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the connected
vehicle. At that stage, one question arose as to whether the application under section 166
of the MV Act can be suo moto converted to an application under section 163 A of the MV
Act. On the basis of erroneous interpretation of a judgment of this court that was
reported in 2006 (1) GLT 282, the Tribunal has held that an application filed under section
166 of the MV Act cannot be suo moto converted by the Tribunal into an application
under section 163A of the MV Act.
Page No.# 3/3
I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous. The
provisions relating to payment of compensation to victims of motor vehicle accident are
beneficial provisions. Therefore, the Tribunal should have taken a positive view while
considering the application seeking compensation.
The Tribunals are at liberty to suo moto convert application under section 166 of the MVT
Act into an application under section 163 A of the MV Act, in appropriate cases.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment dated
20.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC No. 3, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1745/2012 is set aside.
The matter is remanded to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, FTC No. 3,
Kamrup (M), Guwahati to decide afresh after hearing the both sides. The court shall, if
necessary, treat the case as a case under section 163A of the MV Act.
With the above, the present MAC Appeal is disposed of.
Return the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
