Tripura High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Sri Ranjan Nama And Anr on 6 July, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP NO.71 OF 2022
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
......... Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sri Ranjan Nama and anr.
....... Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Gon Chowdhury Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. S. Ch. Sen, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 06.07.2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
This present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the
M.V. Act against the Judgment and award dated 16.02.2022 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.5, West Tripura
Agartala in Case No.T.S.(MAC)34/2019.
2. The brief fact of the case is that on 07.08.2018 at about
6.00 P.M. on Assam-Agartala Road, the claimant-respondent was
standing in front of his workplace i.e., in front of Ghosh Mechanic
Workshop Garage at Kashipur. At that time, the offending truck bearing
TR-01-Y-1583 suddenly came at high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and ran over his left foot causing injury. The claimant was shifted
by some local persons by hiring vehicle to the GBP hospital and he
remained there for 45 days from 07.08.2018 to 20.09.2018. Due to the
injury, the claimant now could not move and work properly and lost his
profession. In connection with the accident, Budhjungnagar PS Case
No.84 of 2018 dated 29.09.2018 under section 279/338 of IPC was
registered. It is also pleaded that the claimant was 28 years old at the
time of the accident and was earning Rs.24,000/- per month being a
motor mechanic by profession and by carrying handicraft business.
Hence, the impugned case was registered before the learned Tribunal
3. The case of the claimant is contested by, the owner of the
offending truck TR-01-Y-1583 by filing a written statement denying the
plea of the claimant and inter alia pleaded that at the time of accident,
the offending vehicle was driven by a skilled and professional driver
having a valid driving license and the vehicle was insured with National
Insurance Company Limited. It is also pleaded that the compensation
claimed is excessive. Thus, the owner of the offending vehicle prayed for
the dismissal of the case of the claimant.
4. The case of the claimant was also contested by, the United
India Insurance Company Limited by filing a written statement denying
the plea of the claimant and inter alia pleaded that owner is bound to
produce Insurance policy, registration certificate, tax token, fitness permit
and pollution certificate of the offending vehicle and the driving license of
the driver otherwise insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation. It is also pleaded that the claimant is to prove his income
and other facts by producing necessary documents otherwise the
insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Thus, Noticee,
Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the case of the claimant.
5. Based on the pleadings and documents, the following
issues were framed:-
(i) Is the claim- petition maintainable in its present form and nature?
(ii) Had the claimant petitioner sustained injuries on 07.08.2018 at about 6 pm
infront of Ghosh Mechanic Workshop at Kashipur under Budhjungnagar PS due
to road traffic accident/ rash and negligent driving of the driver of a vehicle
bearing Registration No.TR-01-Y-1583? If so, is the claimant petitioner entitled
to get compensation as prayed for?
(iii) Who shall be liable for payment of compensation to the claimant petitioner?
6. Learned Tribunal after considering the written statement
of the parties, considering the document as submitted by the parties and
after taking evidence from both the side passed the judgment and award
dated 16.02.2022 in the following terms:-
"The Noticee, United India Insurance Com.Ltd. is directed to
deposit the awarded compensation of Rs.35,97,200/-.(Rupees Thirty Five
Lakhs Ninety Seven thousand two hundred) only within 30 days from today
with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from date of
filing of the claim application i.e., from 11.02.2019 to till realization of the
full.
7. Being aggrieved with the Judgment and award dated
16.02.2022, passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the
appellant-Insurance Company has filed this present appeal to set aside
the impugned Judgment and Award dated 16.02.2022 passed in case
No.T.S.(MAC) No.34 of 2019.
8. Heard Mr. A. Gon. Chaudhury, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-insurance Company as well as Mr. S. Bhattacharjee,
learned counsel and Mr. S.C. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
9. Mr. Gon Chaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-insurance Company submitted that the driver who was driving
the vehicle at the time of the accident was not holding a valid driving
license to drive a heavy good vehicle which was not considered by the
learned Tribunal at the time of passing the award.
10. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that the Judgment and Award as passed by the
learned Tribunal is a reasoned one and needs no interference.
11. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.
12. To properly adjudicate the matter let us first produce
para-26 of the impugned Judgment and award dated 16.02.2022:-
" 26. Driving license:
In this context, I find, from Ext.A, the registration certificate that the
unladen weight of the offending truck is 7220 Kg and, therefore, a person
having driving licence, whether transport or non transport, can drive the
said truck not being above 7500 kg weight. It is settled law that a person
holding driving license of light motor vehicle can drive light motor vehicle
upto 7500 kg whether vehicle is transport vehicle, goods vehicle or public
vehicles. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the present case, the driver
had no effective driving licence to drive the offending truck on the basis of
non transport driving licence.
13. On bare perusal of para-26 of the impugned judgment, it
is clear that the unladen weight of the offending truck is 7220 kg and a
person holding a driving license of a light motor vehicle can drive light
motor vehicle upto 7500 kg whether the vehicle is a transport vehicle,
goods vehicle or public vehicle. So, the driver of the offending vehicle
was holding a valid driving license. Further, on the point of road permit,
no argument was made and evidence was led before the Trial Court, and
in the appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot argue on the
fresh point which was not dealt with by the Court below. Accordingly,
this present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit and judgment and
award dated 16.02.2022 is confirmed and thus upheld.
14. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally
RAJKUMAR
signed by
SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2023.07.07
SINGHA 13:08:50 +05'30'
