Tripura High Court
Sri Manik Lal Majumder vs Sri Rajib Debnath on 7 September, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App. No.50 of 2024
Sri Manik Lal Majumder,
S/o. Late. Sarat Chandra Majumder,
Resident of Vill. & P.O. Reshambagan,
P.S. East Agartala, District West Tripura.
(Owner of Maruti Suzuki Celerio bearing no.TR-01-AP-0508)
---- Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Rajib Debnath,
S/o. Late Subodh Debnath,
Resident of Dhaleswar Road No.16,
P.S. East Agartala, District West Tripura.
Pin-799007
2. The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Mantribari Road, Agartala, West Tripura.
Pin-799001
(Insurer of Maruti Suzuki Celerio bearing No.TR-01-AP-0508)
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soumendu Roy, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Deb, Adv.
Date of hearing : 06.09.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 07.09.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and
award dated 21.02.2022 delivered by Learned MAC Tribunal
No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case
No.TS(MAC) No.147 of 2018.
2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Soumendu Roy for the
appellant and also heard Learned Counsel Mr. K. Deb for the
respondent No.2 i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. None
appeared on behalf of the respondent-claimant.
3. The respondent-claimant has filed one application under
Section 166 of M.V. Act before the Learned Tribunal below on
behalf of his minor injured son namely Rajdeep Debnath who
sustained injuries due to a road traffic accident. The case of the
claimant before the Learned Tribunal below was, in short, is
that on 24.04.2015 at about 9/9:15 am when the minor son of
the claimant, Rajdeep Debnath was standing at Ashram
Chowmuhani near Satadal Sangha with his bicycle, that time,
the offending vehicle bearing No.TR-01-AP-0508 came from the
eastern side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the minor son for which the accident took place and due to that
accident, his minor son sustained multiple fracture injury on his
body. Soon after the accident, his son was shifted to AGMC and
GBP Hospital wherein he got admitted as an indoor patient and
was treated therein up to 27.04.2015. The doctor of GBP
Hospital advised him to go outside the State for better
treatment for which he had to spend some money. On that
issue, a police case was registered vide East Agartala Police
Station police case No.215/EAG060 (may be 2015/EAG060)
under Section 279/338/427 of IPC. According to the appellant,
as the minor son was aged about 12 years on that relevant
point of time so the petition was filed claiming compensation.
4. The present appellant as OP No.1 contested the claim
petition by filing his written objection denying the date, time
and place of alleged accident. It was the plea of the present
appellant as respondent No.1 that there was no rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle and he further submitted that the victim did not sustain
any injury due to accident of vehicle bearing No.TR-01-AP-
0508. It was further submitted that at the time of accident his
vehicle was duly insured with New India Assurance Company
Ltd. covering the date of accident. So, the appellant as
respondent No.1 claimed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The OP No.2 i.e. the Insurance Company contested the
case by filing written statement stating that the accident took
place due to negligence of the victim himself. They also denied
the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-
AP-0508 and also denied the age, income of the injured,
expenditure incurred for the treatment, etc and finally, the
Insurance Company stated that the claim petition is subjected
to strict proof.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, Learned Tribunal below
framed the following issues:
i) Did petitioner Shri Rajdeep Debnath sustain injuries
in a road traffic accident occurred on 24.04.2015 at
about 9/9.15 am at Ashram Chowmuhani near
Satadal Sangha on Assam Agartala Road out of use
of vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-AP-0508
(Maruti Suzuki Celerio) due to its rash and negligent
driving?
ii) Is the petitioner/victim entitled to get
compensation as prayed for and if so, to what
amount and who is liable to pay the same?
iii) To what other reliefs the parties are entitled?
7. To substantiate the issues, the appellant i.e.
respondent No.1 herein was examined as PW-1 and certain
documents were submitted which were marked as Exbt.1 to 5.
8. The present appellant as OP No.1 filed some
photocopies of document through a firisti in respect of the
vehicle like tax token, registration certificate, pollution
certificate, insurance policy, driving licence of the driver but
the said respondent No.1 on the day fixed for evidence did
not turn up nor produced his documents for marking of
exhibits.
9. So, on conclusion of proceeding, Learned Tribunal
below allowed the claim petition by the judgment and for
want of documents, fastened the liability of making payment
of compensation to the present appellant in place of
Insurance Company.
10. For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer
hereinbelow the relevant portion of the judgment and award
dated 21.02.2022 of the Learned Tribunal below:
AWARD
"It is, therefore, held that the petitioner Sri Rajib
Debnath is entitled to get compensation of
Rs.1,00,900/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine hundred)
only on behalf of his minor son with interest @ 6%
per annum from 10.09.2018 i.e. the date of filing of
the claim petition till the dated of actual payment.
O.P. no.1, Sri Manik Lal Majumder, S/O. Late Sarat
Chandra Majumder, resident of village
Reshambagan, P.S. East Agartala, District West
Tripura will pay the amount of compensation with
interest within 30 days from today.
Supply copy of this award free of cost to the parties.
The claim petition stands disposed of on contest."
11. It is to be noted here that the present appellant
preferred one Review Petition which was numbered as Civil
Misc.(Rev.) No.2 of 2022 and the same was later on withdrawn
with a liberty to file a fresh case before the appropriate forum
and accordingly this present appeal was preferred.
12. At the stage of hearing of argument, Learned Counsel
for the appellant submitted that the claim petition was
submitted by claimant-respondent No.1 before the Learned
Tribunal below and before the Tribunal the present appellant as
owner of vehicle No.TR-01-AP-0508 appeared and filed written
statement but in course of evidence on record, the present
appellant could not produce the original documents for marking
of exhibits for which the Learned Tribunal below fastened the
liability of payment of compensation upon the present appellant
for which the interference of the Court is required and Learned
Counsel for the appellant further submitted that another
application is filed for allowing the appellant to adduce evidence
under Order XLI Rule 27(aa) along with Section 151 of CPC.
Learned Counsel further submitted that on the day of alleged
accident the vehicle of the appellant had valid insurance
certificate and if this present appeal is not allowed by allowing
the appellant to adduce evidence in support of his defence then
the appellant would be highly prejudiced. So, Learned Counsel
urged for allowing this appeal by setting aside the judgment
and award of the Learned Tribunal below and to allow the
present appellant to adduce documents in support of his
defence to exonerate him from the liability of payment of
compensation to the respondent-claimant as ordered by the
Learned Tribunal below.
13. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Insurance
Company submitted that admittedly the appellant inspite of
allowing opportunity failed to adduce his documentary evidence
before the Learned Tribunal below. So, Learned Tribunal below
rightly and reasonably has fastened the liability of payment of
compensation upon the present appellant and Learned Counsel
urged for dismissal of this appeal with costs.
14. I have heard Learned Counsel of both the sides and
also perused the record of the Learned Tribunal below including
the judgment and award. In para No.15 of the judgment and
award, it was specifically mentioned by the Learned Tribunal
below that as per order dated 19.09.2019, the OP No.1 i.e. the
present appellant herein submitted some photocopies of
documents in respect of his vehicle like tax token, registration
certificate, pollution certificate, insurance policy, driving license
of the driver by a firisti but those documents were not
exhibited. So, the Learned Tribunal below fastened the liability
of payment of compensation/award upon the appellant in place
of Insurance Company.
15. I have also perused the photocopies of the documents
submitted before the Learned Tribunal by the said OP No.1 i.e.
the present appellant herein. It appears that on the day of
alleged accident, the offending vehicle had valid insurance
certificate under OP No.2 i.e. the respondent No.2 herein but
may be for some unknown reasons, the present appellant could
not produce the original documents before the Tribunal for
marking of exhibits. So, considering all and also for fair ends of
justice, it appears that for proper adjudication of the matters in
dispute an opportunity be given to the present appellant to
allow the appellant to adduce the documents for marking of
exhibits so as to enable the Tribunal to shift the liability of
payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company if the
documents are found to be valid.
16. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby
partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 21.02.2022
delivered by Learned MAC Tribunal No.1, West Tripura, Agartala
in connection with case No.TS(MAC) No.147 of 2018 is hereby
set aside. The case is remanded back to the Learned Tribunal
below with a direction to allow the appellant-owner of the
vehicle bearing No.TR-01-AP-0508 to file examination-in-chief
in affidavit afresh, if not filed, and to allow the appellant to
produce the documents for marking exhibits after affording
opportunity to the other rival contesting parties for cross-
examination of the appellant i.e. the OP No.1 and thereafter to
deliver a fresh judgment in accordance with law, if the
documents are found to be valid. The Learned Tribunal below
shall dispose of the case within a period of 3(three) months
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The appellant
shall appear before the Learned Tribunal below on 21.09.2024.
Further Learned Tribunal below shall inform Learned Counsel for
the claimant before recording evidence.
A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the
Learned Counsel for the appellant and also to the Learned
Counsel for the Insurance Company for information.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.09.09
14:11:11 -07'00'
Deepshikha
