Tripura High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Sri Sribas Ch. De And Anr on 4 April, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 9
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC. APP. NO.114 OF 2024
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.
...... Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Sribas Ch. De and anr.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shubhjit Chakrabroty, Advocate.
Mr. Samar Das, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Saugat Datta, Advocate.
Mr. Biswajit Nath, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 04.04.2025
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant, Insurance Company
challenging the Judgment and Award dated 18.05.2024 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, West Tripura,
Agartala in Case No.T.S.(MAC)226 of 2021.
2. The brief facts of this case are that on 21.02.2021,
the victim-Claimant Respondent, Sri Sribas Ch. De, was proceeding
towards Kanchanbari on his motorcycle bearing registration No. TR-
02-B-7816. At around 2.00 P.M., when he reached Taraninagar, a
vehicle bearing No. TR-04-C-0614 (Alto), coming from the opposite
direction at high speed and being driven rashly and negligently by
its driver, suddenly dashed into the victim's motorcycle. As a result,
the victim sustained serious injuries. He was immediately taken to
Kanchanbari PHC, from where he was referred to GBP Hospital,
Agartala, for further treatment. The Claimant-Respondent, i.e.,
Respondent No. 1, filed an application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.76,25,000/-
for the injuries sustained in the said road traffic accident.
3. After completion of the trial, the learned Tribunal
passed the Judgment and Award dated 18.05.2024, allowing the
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant
was awarded a sum of Rs.34,77,200/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Lakh
Seventy-Seven Thousand Two Hundred only) with interest @ 9%
per annum w.e.f. 29.11.2021 (i.e., the date of filing of the case) till
the date of actual payment. Being the insurer, the Tribunal directed
the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the said compensation.
The operative portion of the Judgment and Award dated 18.05.2024
is as under:
" AWARD
It is, therefore, held that the claimant petitioner Sri Sribas
Ch. De is entitled to get compensation of Rs.34,77,200/- (Rupees Thirty
Four Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand Two Hundred) only with interest @
9% per annum w.e.f. 29.11.2021 i.e. the date of filing of the case till the
date of actual payment. The Noticee i.e. Reliance General Insurance
Company Ltd. being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall pay the
amount of compensation with interest within 30 days from today in
terms of Section 168(3) of M.V. Act, 1988.
Out of the awarded amount of compensation inclusive of
interest, 50% shall be kept in a fixed deposit scheme in his name in any
Nationalized Bank of his locality for a period of five years and the rest
50% shall be paid to him through his Bank Account. However, the
claimant petitioner shall be entitled to receive monthly interest
therefrom for his day to day expenses. No loan or premature withdrawal
shall be permitted from the fixed deposit account without prior
permission of this Tribunal.
Supply copy of this award free of cost to the parties.
The claim petition stands disposed of on contest.
Enter the result in the relevant Register as well as in the
CIS."
4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Award as passed
by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has
preferred this instant appeal.
5. Heard Mr. Shubhajit Chakraborty, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, and Mr. S. Datta,
learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent No.1.
6. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that the learned
Tribunal erred in law by putting the liability of paying compensation
on the appellant-Insurance Company. As such, the impugned
Judgment and Award dated 18.05.2024 is not tenable in the eye of
law and is liable to be set aside and quashed/modified to prevent
unnecessary drainage of public exchequer and in the interest of
justice. He further submitted that the Tribunal wrongly awarded
interest @ 9% per annum, which is on the higher side.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Saugat Datta, learned
counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent, submitted that the
insurance company is merely a 'noticee' and, as such, cannot
challenge the Award passed by the learned Tribunal.
In support of his argument, he referred to Para-14
of the Judgment of this Court reported in (2014) 1 TLR 497 titled
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bishaka Rudha Paul
and Anr. The said para is quoted here-in-under:
"14. A conjoint reading of the principles as laid down in Shila
Datta (supra) and Rekha Jain (supra) it would eminently
transpire that the insurer as the noticee has no locus standi to
challenge the award passed by the tribunal on questioning its
legality inasmuch as the noticee does not have that status to
carry out an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
beyond the grounds those would flow from section 149(2) of the
Motor Vehicles Act. Apart that, if on the premises as provided
under section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer is not
provided with leave by the tribunal for resorting to all the
defences as available to the owner of the vehicle or the driver,
the insurer even as the party cannot resort to all such defences
as available to the owner/driver. Indubitably in this case, the
appellant is simply a noticee. Thus, in view of Shila Datta (supra)
the appellant does not have any locus standi to carry out this
appeal on questioning the quantum either directly or by
implications and accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs."
8. Upon careful examination of the records and
proceedings, this Court finds it necessary to record its strong
disapproval of the conduct of the 'noticee' Insurance Company.
Initially, the matter proceeded ex parte due to the absence of the
'noticee', as per the order dated 27.07.2022. Although the
Insurance Company later filed an application under Order IX Rule 7
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same was
allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 05.03.2024,
considering the fact that the 'noticee' Insurance Company had no
objection regarding the issues already framed by the Tribunal and
had also expressed disinterest in adducing any evidence.
Thereafter, the Insurance Company filed their written statement,
praying for dismissal of the claim petition. However, no officers of
the Insurance Company took any care to monitor the Court
proceedings or to ensure the presence of any officer to attend the
Court and present sufficient evidence in support of their denial as
stated in the written statement. None of the officers even appeared
in the witness dock to support their case or to contest the
claimant's version of the events.
9. At times such careless and indifferent approach by
the Insurance Company directly contributed in the awarding of a
higher compensation amount. Such conduct reflects a lack of
seriousness in defending the claim and results in misuse of public
funds, as insurance payouts are ultimately sourced from public
contributions in the form of premiums. When officers of a public or
government-run Insurance Company fail to fulfill their duties, the
financial burden falls on the public, leading to increased premiums
and loss of trust in the system.
10. This Court is of the considered view that such
behavior must not go unchecked and that accountability must be
fixed on the officers responsible for mishandling the case despite it
is intentional or due to negligence or mistake for whatever the
reasons.
11. This Court has previously held in several matters
that, in cases of laches and non-performance of duties by officers,
as required under their service conditions, the resulting loss and
hardship caused to the institution cannot be attributed to the
institution itself. Instead, the liability should be fastened upon the
erring officers whose actions led to such outcomes. Any
compensation decided in this regard must be recovered from the
concerned erring officer, and the burden cannot be imposed upon
the institution, which would, in turn, shift the burden onto innocent
citizens by collecting enhanced premiums in subsequent years.This
principle was laid down by this Court in reported judgments such as
MAC. APP. No. 89 of 2023, titled as Oriental Insurance
Company vs. Smt. Aparna Nath and Others, dated
22.07.2024; MFA(FA) No. 02 of 2023, titled as The Tripura
State Electricity Corporation Ltd. and Others vs. Smti.
Kamalapati Kaloi and Others, dated 11.07.2024; and MAC.
APP. No. 94 of 2023, titled as The United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Smti. Champa Rani Saha and Others, dated
17.01.2025.
12. Along the same lines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, in its judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 1876 of 2016,
titled as Central Bank of India and Others vs. Smt. Prabha
Jain and Others, and its Judgment reported in (2021) 3 SCC
806, titled as Boloram Bordoloi vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and
Others, has taken the view that if any loan is disbursed by erring
officers in contravention of their service conditions, the liability
cannot be fastened upon the Bank. Instead, such liability must be
also borne upon the concerned officer/manager whose actions led to
the erosion of public trust in the Bank and the Bank employee is
liable for actioned against him.
13. The relevant paragraphs from the said Hon'ble
Supreme Court Judgments are referred here-under:-
i. Para-44 of Central Bank of India and ors. Vs.
Smt. Prabha Jain:-
"44. Before we close this litigation, we
deem it necessary to observe that Banks should remain very
careful with inadequate title clearance reports, more particularly,
when such reports are obtained cheaply and at times for external
reasons. This concerns the protection of public money and is in
the larger public interest. Therefore, it is essential for the Reserve
Bank of India and other stakeholders to collaborate in developing
a standardized and practical approach for preparing title search
report before sanctioning loans and also for the purpose of
determining liability (including potential criminal action) of the
Officer who approves loan. Additionally, there should be standard
guidelines for fees and costs associated with title search reports
so as to ensure that they maintain high quality.
ii. Para-13 of Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia
Bank and ors(supra):-
"13. The manager of a bank plays a vital role in
managing the affairs of the bank. A bank officer/employee deals
with the public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance
with the inbuilt requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee
of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of
the bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued
for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the
same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public
trust on the banks. If the manager of a bank indulges in such
misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated
18.06.2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that
such charges are grave and serious. Inspite of proved misconduct
on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in
imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of
the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the
disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the
gravity of charges. As such, this submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant also cannot be accepted."
14. In terms of the above discussion, the present
appeal stands disposed of. The entire awarded amount as given by
the learned Tribunal is to be paid by the appellant-Insurance
Company to the claimant within a period of 2 (two) months from
today.
15. The Insurance Company shall recover the said
amount from the erring officers responsible for handling the matter
relating to this Motor Accident Claim and who failed to act with due
diligence, resulting in an adverse outcome.
16. However, the interest awarded by the learned
Tribunal at 9% per annum is on the higher side. This Court, in
similarly situated matters, has been fixing interest on the awarded
amount at 7.5% per annum as a standard rate, and the same is
imposed in the present case. The remaining part of the order
passed by the learned Tribunal shall remain unchanged. The
claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount upon deposit as
per procedure. Registry is directed to do the needful.
17. A copy of this judgment be marked to Mr. Arun
Tiwari, Chairman and Additional Director (Independent), and Mr.
Rakesh Jain, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Registered and
Corporate Office: 6th Floor, Oberoi Commerz, International
Business Park, Oberoi Garden City, Off Western Express Highway,
Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063, India to get the compensation paid
to the claimant and recover the same from the erred officers of the
Insurance Company.
18. As a sequel, any stay stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand closed.
JUDGE
Suhanjit
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT SINGHA
SUHANJIT SINGHA Date: 2025.04.10 13:05:47
+05'30'
