National Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Mamata Begum
2022 Latest Caselaw 784 Tri

                             Page 1 of 6


                   HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA
                   MAC APP NO.50 OF 2022

   National Insurance Company Limited,
   Represented by its Divisional Manager,
   Agartala Divisional Officer, A.K. Road, Agartala,
   P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Dist-West Tripura.
   [Insurer of the Bus bearing No.TR-01-AQ-0228(Maruti Alto
   800)]

                                           ......... Appellant(s)

                   Vs.

   1. Smt. Mamata Begum,
   W/o-Md. Echak Miah.

   2. Md. Echak Miah,
   S/o-Late Gani Miah,

   (Claimant respondents No.1 & 2 are the mother and father

of the deceased and are residents of village Joynagar near Dilwala Petrol Pump, P.O.- Birendranagar, P.S. Jirania, District-West Tripura.

........ Claimant Respondent(s)

3. Mrs. Laxmiswari Debbarma, W/o Late Sudhanya Debbarma, Resident of Asriapara, Chachu Bazar, Sidahi Mohanpur, P.S. Sidhai, (Owner of Maruti Alto bearing registration No.TR-01-AQ- 0228)

......(Owner Respondent)

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Debnath, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.

Mr. H. Debbarma, Advocate.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 23.08.2022

Whether fit for reporting : NO.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and

award dated 18.09.2021 passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, West Tripura, Agartala, in

Case No.TS.(MAC) No.250 of 2016 and staying of the

operation of the impugned judgment and award dated

18.09.2021. Further not to proceed with any execution

proceeding, if any, filed by the claimant respondents in the

meantime, till disposal of the present appeal.

2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that, on

25.02.2015 the son of respondents No.1 & 2 namely, Inucch

alias Inachh Miah was working as a driver under the owner

respondent and he went to Indranagar, Agartala by driving a

vehicle bearing No. TR-01-AQ-0228, for participating in a

religious function of the Muslim Community. On the way

back home, when the vehicle reached Ranirbazar, Nalgaria,

on Assam-Agartala Road, at about 0.15 hrs of 26.02.2015,

while giving pass to another vehicle dashed against a tree on

the left side. As a result, the driver namely, Inachh Miah,

and the passengers in the said vehicle sustained serious

injuries. With the help of the local people and fire service,

they were taken to Ranirbazar PHC, wherefrom they were

referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala, where the

attending doctors declared him dead. Out of the said

accident, a police case was registered in Ranirbazar P.S. as

Ranirbazar P.S U.D. Case No.02 of 2015, under Section 174

of Cr.P.C. following GDE No.960.

3. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the

claimant-respondents claiming compensation to the tune of

Rs.18,17,280/- for the death of Inuchh alias Inachh Miah,

the son of the respondents Nos-1 and 2.

4. The owner-respondent i.e. the O.P. No.1,

owner of the offending vehicle bearing No. TR-01-AQ-

0228(Maruiti Alto 800) contested the case by filing a written

statement stating that at the time of the accident, the driver

of the alleged vehicle was having a valid driving license. On

the alleged date of the accident, the vehicle had all

documents like registration certificate, tax token, insurance

certificate, etc. The accident did not occur due to the rash

and negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle.

Further, the vehicle in question is/was insured with the

appellant Ins, Co. at the relevant time of the accident, and if

there is any compensation that is to be borne by the

appellant, Insurance Company.

5. The appellant, Insurance Company also

contested the case by filing a writing statement denying and

disputing the monthly income, age, profession, and all other

claims of the claimants' respondents and prayed for

dismissal of the claim petition. The appellant, Insurance

Company also pleaded that there was contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased.

6. After considering the written statement,

evidence and the argument advanced by the appellant-

Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal fastened the entire

liability of compensation of Rs.6,80,000/- against the

appellant, Insurance Company along with the stipulated rate

of interest.

7. Mr. S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant, Insurance Company argued that the vehicle in

question is authorized to carry only 1+3 passengers and

beyond that, the concerned Maruti Vehicle is not eligible to

carry any passenger beyond its seating capacity. The

learned Tribunal has not considered the authorized seating

capacity of the concerned Maruti Alto vehicle and passed the

award against the appellant, Insurance company. Further,

learned counsel pleaded that there is contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased.

8. Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents opposed the said argument of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant, Insurance Company,

and prayed to uphold the judgment and award of the

learned Tribunal.

9. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on

record.

10. It is already established that the accident had

occurred out of the use of the Maruti Alto 800 bearing No.

TR-01-AQ-0228. As such the liability of payment of

compensation should be borne by the owner of the Maruti

Alto. But the engine number, chassis number, and

registration certificate of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-AQ-

0228 as proved by the owner-respondent is covered under

the Insurance Policy of the vehicle in question. It is a

package policy covering the period from 24.12.2014 to

23.12.2015 and the accident occurred on 26.02.2015 i.e.

within the period of the policy. As per the driving license of

the driver-Inuchh Miah, he was authorized to drive, M.CYL,

LMV-NT, TRANSPORT, LMVCAB w.e.f. 06.01.2009 having

validity up to 07.02.2032 for non-transport vehicles and up

to 07.02.2015 for transport vehicles. As the vehicle involved

in this alleged accident is a non-transport vehicle, the

driving license of the driver was valid at the time of the

accident.

11. In view of the above observation and the

evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the

impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2021 passed by

the learned Motor Claims Tribunal No.1, West Tripura,

Agartala in Case No.TS(MAC)250 OF 2016 is just and proper

and it needs no interference.

12. Consequently, this instant, appeal stands

dismissed.

JUDGE

suhanjit