Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Mrs. Monalisa Saikia And 4 Ors on 4 February, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010003692017
2025:GAU-AS:1134
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./874/2018
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI 600014
WITH ONE OF ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI,
GUWAHATI-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
MRS. MONALISA SAIKIA and 4 ORS
W/O LATE ABANI SAIKIA
2:MISS HEERAKSMITA SAIKIA
D/O. LATE ABANI SAIKIA
3:SHIKASMITA SAIKIA
D/O LATE ABANI SAIKIA
ALL ARE R/O No. 2 KAKI DEOBALI
P.S.KAKI
P.O. KAKI VIA NAGAON 782001
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
RESPONDENT NO. 2 and 3 ARE MINOR DAUGHTERS OF THE DECEASED
AND ARE BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RESPONDENT NO. 1
4:SRI. RAJIB DAS
S/O LATE BIRSING DAS
R/O VILL. KHUTIKATIA
NEAR RADIO CENTRE
P.S. and P.O. NAGAON 782001
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/7
5:MD. BADRUL ALI
S/O LATE JAINAL ALI
R/O FOUZDARIPATTY
NAGAON
P.S. and P.O. NAGAON
ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Advocate for the appellant(s) : Mr. RC Paul
Advocate for the respondent(s) : Mr. J Kalita
Date of hearing : 04.02.2025
& Judgment
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. RC Paul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant. Mr. J Kalita, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
respondents/claimants.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for
short, the Act of 1988), challenging the judgment and award dated 15.11.2016
passed in MAC Case No.582/2013.
3. This Court had perused the impugned judgment and award dated
Page No.# 3/7
15.11.2016, whereby the learned Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Nagaon had passed an award of an amount of Rs.19,50,107.16/- to be paid
within a period of 3(three) months from the date of the said judgment and
award and in the event of failure to make payment within the stipulated period
the compensation amount shall carry an interest @ 7% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim application. In addition to that, it has also been
mentioned that the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1000/- as costs of the
proceedings.
4. The legality and validity of the said impugned judgment and award dated
15.11.2016 has been questioned by the Insurance Company herein on the sole
ground that the claim so made was a fraudulent claim, and as such, the
claimants were not entitled to any compensation.
5. Mr. R.C. Paul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had
submitted that the person expired on 16.10.2010 and FIR was filed only on
25.10.2013 which is after three years and as such, it is apparent that it is a fake
claim being made. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on
the other hand, submitted that though the FIR had been filed in the year 2013,
but the post-mortem report which was done in the case of the deceased Late
Abani Saikia would clearly reflect that the Dispur Traffic Police Station Case was
instituted immediately upon the accident and upon his death, the post-mortem
report was carried out. He further submitted that in the post-mortem report, it
has also been mentioned that the deceased expired on account of head injury.
The learned counsel further submitted that this aspect of the matter is further
Page No.# 4/7
corroborated by the evidence brought on record by exhibits 11(12), which is the
sonography report being carried out upon the deceased, when he was alive,
wherein it has been categorically mentioned about the head trauma.
6. On the basis of the above objections so made to the judgment and award
dated 15.11.2016, this Court finds it relevant to briefly take note of the facts
which led to the filing of the instant appeal. It has been stated in the claim
petition that on 13.10.2010 at around 9 P.M, the husband of the claimant No.1
was standing at Bamungaon Chariali on the left side of the road, when a vehicle
bearing Registration No.AS-02/D-2799 (Tata Indica DLS) which was coming from
Nagaon towards Lumding in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the
husband of the claimant No.1 from his backside and as a result of which, the
victim sustained grievous injuries. It was also mentioned that the victim was
shifted to the Azmal Sekh Nursing Home and Hospital, Hojai and thereafter, he
was referred to the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital. Further to that, it was
mentioned that instead of taking the victim to the Gauhati Medical College &
Hospital, the victim was taken to the Dispur Hospital, where he received certain
treatment and thereupon succumbed to his injuries on 16.10.2010. It is relevant
at this stage to take note of that the post-mortem examination was carried out
36 hours after the death of the victim and from a perusal of the said post-
mortem report, which had been exhibited as Exhibit-2, it is seen that the death
of the husband of the claimant No.1 was on account of head injury. It is also
seen in the said post-mortem report that there is a reference to the Dispur
Traffic Police Station Case No.529 of the year 2010 itself.
Page No.# 5/7
7. All the opposite parties in the said proceedings had filed their written
statement. On the basis of the said written statement, four issues were framed,
which included the Issue No.2 as to whether the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AS-02/D-2799 (Tata
Indica DLS)? The Issue No.3 pertains to as to whether the claimants are entitled
to receive compensation and if so to what extent and who is liable to pay the
same?
8. The learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.2 on the basis of the
evidence on record came to a finding that vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-
02/D-2799 (Tata Indica DLS)had caused the death of the husband of the
claimant No.1 due to rash and negligent driving. On the question of
compensation, the learned Tribunal came to a finding that the claimants were
entitled to an amount of Rs.19,50,107.16/- and further directed the manner in
which the amount is to be paid as set out specifically in paragraph No.12 of the
said judgment and award.
9. In the backdrop of the above, the question, which arises is as to whether,
any interference is called for to the judgment and award passed by the learned
Tribunal dated 15.11.2016. This Court had duly taken note of the submissions
made by Mr. R.C. Paul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
as already noted hereinabove. Although, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant had submitted that the FIR was filed almost 3(three)
years after the incident, but the fact that there was already Dispur Traffic Police
Station Case No.529/2010 registered, as is apparent from the post-mortem
Page No.# 6/7
report, it cannot be said that mere filing of an FIR by the claimant No.1 after
3(three) years would show that the accident actually did not take place. In
addition to that, it is also relevant to take note of that the appellant did not
adduce any evidence or carry out any investigation which had been placed
before this Court by way of additional evidence.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the
instant appeal, for which, the appeal stands dismissed.
11. This Court further takes note of that pursuant to an order dated
28.01.2019, the appeal was admitted and further there was a stay of the award,
subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount. The said 50% had already
been deposited by the appellant Insurance Company before the Registry of this
Court and the claimants have already received the said amount. The remaining
amount along with the interest payable be deposited before the learned Tribunal
within 6 (six) weeks from today. Upon such deposit being made, the learned
Tribunal shall disburse the said amount by taking into account the observations
made in paragraph 12 of the judgment and award dated 15.11.2016.
12. It is further mentioned that upon deposit of the said amount as directed
hereinabove, the Tribunal shall pass an order as regards the receipt of the said
amount as per the instant judgment and thereupon, on production of the said
order before the Registry, the statutory deposit of Rs.25000/- so made by the
appellant at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded by the Registry.
Page No.# 7/7
13. With the above, the appeal stands disposed of.
14. Registry to return back the records to the learned Court below.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
