Page No.# 1/7 vs Suniti Singha And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4531 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs Suniti Singha And 4 Ors on 27 March, 2025

                                                                Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010233102022




                                                         2025:GAU-AS:3579

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

                          Case No. : MACApp./800/2022

         NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 87, M.G. ROAD,
         FORT, MUMBAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT STAR CITY COMPLEX, 5TH
         FLOOR, LACHIT NAGAR NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR G.S. ROAD,
         GUWAHATI- 781007.



         VERSUS

         SUNITI SINGHA AND 4 ORS.
         W/O LATE BIRO CHANDRA SINGHA,
         VILL.- DHOLAI MOLAI PT. XI,
         P.O.- DHOLAI SOUTH,
         P.S.- KATLICHERRA,
         DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788161.

         2:ANAND SINGHA
          (MINOR) REP. BY THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
         THAT IS
          RESPONDENT NO. 1

         S/O LATE BIRO CHANDRA SINGHA

         VILL.- DHOLAI MOLAI PT. XI

         P.O.- DHOLAI SOUTH

         P.S.- KATLICHERRA

         DIST.- HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM
         PIN- 788161.
                                                                          Page No.# 2/7

            3:MILAN SINGHA
             (MINOR) REP. BY THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
            THAT IS
             RESPONDENT NO. 1

            S/O LATE BIRO CHANDRA SINGHA

            VILL.- DHOLAI MOLAI PT. XI

            P.O.- DHOLAI SOUTH

            P.S.- KATLICHERRA

            DIST.- HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM
            PIN- 788161.

            4:PUSHPA SINGHA
            W/O LATE ATOM BABU SINGHA

            R/O LALA TOWN
            WARD NO. 3

            P.O.- MADARIPAR

            DIST.- HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM
            PIN- 788163.

            5:RIBUL BARBHUIYA
             S/O TAJUDDIN ALI BARBHUIYA

            R/O UTTAR JOSNABAD PT. II

            P.S.- LALA

            DIST.- HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM
            PIN- 788163

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. M SAIKIA,MS. P BORTHAKUR

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A ROSHID, MS. T BEGUM,MR H DAS(R-1,2,3),MR. A
ROSHID (R-1,2,3),MR. B J GHOSH (R-4),MS. M R DEVI ,MS. T BEGUM (R-1,2,3)
                                                                       Page No.# 3/7


                                 BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                     ORDER

Date : 27.03.2025

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 04.08.2022, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Hailakandi, in MAC Case No. 33/2012.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award dated 04.08.2022, the learned Tribunal had directed the appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs. 31,08,000/- as compensation to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

4. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is the second round of litigation before this Court and earlier, the appellant herein preferred MACApp. No. 250/2015, against the judgment and award dated 13.07.2015, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Hailakandi, in MAC Case No. 33/2012, and this Court was pleased to dispose of the same by setting aside the judgment and award dated 13.07.2015 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Tribunal for passing fresh judgment on all the issues. Further, Mr. Goswami submits that the learned Tribunal had framed as many as three issues, in the earlier judgment and award dated 13.07.2015, which read as under:

Page No.# 4/7

(i) Whether the alleged accident occurred involving TATA Nano vehicle of opposite party No. 2 bearing Registration No. AS-01-AP-2233?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation and if so, to what extent and against whom?

(iii) To what other relief/reliefs?

4.1. Referring to the impugned judgment and award dated 04.08.2022, especially to paragraph No. 9, Mr. Goswami submits that while arriving at the finding of issue No. (i), which is the crux of the matter, the learned Tribunal had not directed any discussion into the evidence on record in the impugned judgment and award as to whether the TATA Nano vehicle, bearing Registration No. AS-01-AP-2233, was involved in the accident that took place on 10.11.2011, at about 7 a.m. The learned Tribunal had simply held that in view of the decision of this Court in MACApp. No. 250/2015, no further discussion was required in this regard and that this Court found that the claimants had successfully proved regarding the alleged accident, in which the deceased died.

4.2. Mr. Goswami further submits that the finding so arrived at is not in accordance with the provision of Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC, which provides for Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. Mr. Goswami also submits that though the learned Tribunal had pronounced the judgment on the issue No. (i), there is no discussion on the evidence of the witnesses, and as such, the finding is not in consonance of the order passed by this Court in MACApp. No. 250/2015, and therefore, Mr. Goswami submits that under Order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC, the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to record a fresh and just finding on the issue No. (i), after discussion of the evidence so adduced by both the parties.

Page No.# 5/7

5. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4/owner of the TATA Nano vehicle also subscribed to the submission of Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ghosh submits that the TATA Nano was a self-driven vehicle and the respondent No. 4 never employed any driver and the seizure list also does not bear the signature of the owner and as such, the impugned judgment and award may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide the issue No. (i) afresh, after discussion of the evidence so brought on record.

6. However, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Roshid, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submit that the matter is an old pending matter and there is a requirement for urgent disposal of the same.

7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the record of the learned Tribunal and also gone through the impugned judgment and award dated 04.08.2022, passed by the learned Tribunal and the earlier judgment and award dated 13.07.2015, and the order of this Court in MAC App. No. 250/2015 and I find substance in the submission of Mr. Goswami and Mr. Ghosh. It appears that in the impugned judgment and award dated 04.08.2022, the learned Tribunal had framed as many as three issues. It also appears that in the impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal had recorded its finding on all the issues. But, while arriving at the finding on issue No. (i), the learned Tribunal had not directed any discussion into the evidence on record. And the finding on the said issue is not supported by any discussion and reason.

8. It is to be noted here that speaking order or reasoned order is considered as the third pillar of natural justice. A decision is called a reasoned decision Page No.# 6/7

because it contains reasons of its own in its support. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jain, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 711, stated that "reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless".

8.1. Further, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785, in paragraph No. 18, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"18. Providing of reasons in orders is of essence in judicial proceedings. Every litigant who approaches the Court with a prayer is entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such request. Either of the parties to the lis has a right of appeal and, therefore, it is essential for them to know the considered opinion of the Court to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into final decision which may be subject to examination of the appellate or other higher Courts. It is not only desirable but, in view of the consistent position of law, mandatory for the Court to pass orders while recording reasons in support thereof, however, brief they may be. Brevity in reasoning cannot be understood in legal parlance as absence of reasons...."

9. Under the given facts and circumstances, the finding, so recorded by the learned Tribunal cannot be considered as a reasoned finding being the same benefit of any discussion of evidence.

10. Thus, taking note of the submissions of Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, and further considering the impugned judgment and award dated 04.08.2022, and the order passed by this Court in MACApp. No. 250/2015, this Court is inclined Page No.# 7/7

to set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 04.08.2022. The matter stands remanded to the learned Tribunal to discuss the evidence of all the witnesses so examined by the parties and thereafter, arrive at a just finding on all the issues, so framed and to pronounce a fresh decision.

11. The aforementioned exercise has to be carried out as soon as practicable as the matter is pending since long.

12. In terms of above, this appeal stands disposed of.

13. Registry shall send the record back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant