Smt. Shumi Majumder (Debnath) And ... vs Sri Sukbindar Singh And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 999 Tri

Tripura High Court

Smt. Shumi Majumder (Debnath) And ... vs Sri Sukbindar Singh And Another on 23 April, 2025

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                               HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                     AGARTALA

                                MAC App. 107 of 2024


      Smt. Shumi Majumder (Debnath) and another
                                                              ..............Appellants

                                         VERSUS

      Sri Sukbindar Singh and another
                                                             ............Respondents

For Appellant(s)                 : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate.
                                   Mr. Subham Majumder, Advocate.
                                   Mr. Kishalay Roy, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)                : Mr. Asim Kumar Deb, Advocate.

Date of hearing and delivery
of judgment and order            : 23.04.2025

Whether fit for reporting        : Yes

                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

                            JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

This is an appeal under Section under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, (M.V. Act for short) against the impugned Judgment &

Award dated 25.07.2024, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in T.S.(MAC) 1 of 2020,

whereby learned Tribunal below dismissed the claim petition.

[2] The case of the appellants in brief is that on 06.12.2012, the

deceased Parimal Debnath was proceeding from Sutanga by driving a truck

loaded with coal towards Beltala, Guwahati, and in the road he was abducted

along with the truck and coal and lastly he was murdered by the miscreants.

Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by his widow and minor son (appellants

No.1 & 2 herein respectively) under Section 166 of the MV Act, and the same

was registered and marked as T.S. (MAC) 53 of 2013. Thereafter, the said

claim petition was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide Judgment & Award

dated 11.03.2016. An appeal was preferred against the said order dated

11.03.2016 before this Court, and the same was registered as MAC

App.41/2016. Thereafter, during the time of hearing of the appeal on

12.9.2016, the same as well as the claim petition was withdrawn with a liberty

to file afresh claim petition. Subsequently, the appellant filed fresh claim

petition under Section 163-A, and the same was registered as TS(MAC) 1 of

2020, and the said claim petition was also dismissed by impugned Judgment &

Award dated 25.07.2024 in the following manner:

".............ORDER

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163A of the Act is made against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as the employee of the owner of the vehicle is not maintainable in its present form and nature.

Since the suit is found not maintainable in its present form and nature, the other issues are also decided in negative.

Accordingly this tribunal find that the claimant-petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation under Section 163A of the M. V. Act. So, this claim is disposed of with nil award on contest......"

[3] Aggrieved by the afore-quoted impugned Judgment and award

dated 25.07.2024, the instant appeal has been filed seeking the following

reliefs:

"Under the circumstances stated above it is most humbly prayed that Your Lordships would be kind enough to admit the appeal, call for the records and after hearing the parties set aside the impugned Judgment & Award dated 25.07.2024, passed by the Ld. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in T.S.(MAC) 1 of 2020, and pass an adequate award, in terms of the claim petition........"

[4] Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that

the learned tribunal below committed error in appreciating that in a claim

petition under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, there is no necessity to prove the

negligence of driver/owner and the same is guided by no fault liability. As the

appellants qualify all requirements of Section 163A of the M.V. Act, their claim

petition ought to have been allowed in accordance with law and the impugned

judgment and award passed by the learned trial Court below is liable to be

interfered with.

[5] It is further contended by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the

appellants that learned Tribunal below committed serious mistake in

appreciating the scope and ambit of claim petition under Section 163-A of the

Motor Vehicles Act since in the alleged incident, the deceased was abducted

and murdered by the miscreants with an intention to rob the vehicle alongwith

the coal and in that circumstances, the deceased being the employee cannot

say that he is representing the owner and for his death owner is not liable to

pay compensation. He submits that the present case is squarely covered by a

decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Rita Devi and ors.

vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and ors, reported in 2000

(5) SCC 113 and therefore, he has placed reliance on the same.

[6] On the contrary, Mr. Asim Kumar Deb, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent insurance company opposes the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellants. He submits that the appellants had earlier

filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act and the same was

dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide Judgment & Award dated 11.03.2016.

An appeal was preferred against the said order dated 11.03.2016 before this

Court, and the same was withdrawn by the appellants with a liberty to file

afresh claim petition. Thereafter, the appellant filed fresh claim petition under

Section 163-A, and the same was registered as TS(MAC) 1 of 2020, and the

said claim petition was also dismissed by the impugned Judgment & Award

dated 25.07.2024. Learned counsel contends that the dependants of the

deceased had an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act or

under Section 163-A of the Act. Once they approached the tribunal under

Section 166 of the Act, they had to take the burden of establishing the

negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle concerned. To support his

contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments of

the Hon'ble Apex Court:

1. Surinder Kumar Arora & anotner v. Dr. Manorj Bisla & others

reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1918

2. Valsamma Chacko and another v. M.A. Titto & others in case No.

Special Leave Petition (C) No.27621 of 2019.

[7] Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the

material evidence on record.

[8] Admittedly, the vehicle(Truck) bearing No. AS-01-CC-2135 which

is the subject-matter of the Title Suit (MAC) 01 of 2020 was duly ensured and

the driver was having valid driving license. According to the respondent, there

was no reason on paper as per records to deny the benefits except on the

ground that the driver was abducted and killed by the miscreants with an

intention to rob the vehicle alongwith the coal. For a minute, it can be

reasonably construed that the claimants are having an option to exercise the

option either under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Workmen's

Compensation Act since the deceased was killed while performing his duty. In

view of the settled principle, the claimants opted for making their respective

claims under the M.V. Act before the MACT Court. Moreover, this Court is of

the considered view that though the claimants have two options, they have

exercised the M.V. Act, which was just and reasonable and their case was

considerable under the said Act as the vehicle was plied with all valid

documents and in the process, crime has taken place. Subsequently, the

deceased was abducted and killed by the miscreants.

[9] Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment passed in Smt. Rita Devi

and ors. vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and ors reported in

2000 (5) SCC 113 has categorically held that the claimants are entitled for

compensation under the M.V. Act. For the purpose of reference, the relevant

contents of the said judgment, are quoted hereunder:

".....6. On behalf of the appellants, Shri Anurabh Chowdhury contends that the

deceased was employed to drive the autorickshaw for ferrying passengers on

hire and on the fateful day the autorickshaw was parked at the rickshaw-stand at

Dimapur and at about 5 to 6 p.m some unknown passengers had engaged the

said autorickshaw for their journey towards Singrijan area and thereafter

nothing was known of the driver or rickshaw. It is only on the next day that the

authorities were able to recover the body of the deceased and the autorickshaw

in question was never traced till date. The owner of the autorickshaw has,

therefore, been compensated by the Insurance Company for the loss of the said

autorickshaw, therefore, the murder of the deceased Dasarath Singh squarely

comes within the word "death" due to accident arising out of the use of motor

vehicle found in Section 163-A(1) of the Act. Consequently the Tribunal was

justified in awarding the compensation claimed by the appellants. He contended

that the word "accident" has not been defined under the Motor Vehicles Act and

the said Act being a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation should be given

so as to achieve the objects of the Act. He contended that the deceased being an

employee was entitled for compensation both under the Motor Vehicles Act and

also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. However, under Section 167

of the Motor Vehicles Act, the heirs of the deceased had a choice either to claim

compensation under that Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The

appellants having chosen to invoke the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the

Tribunal was wholly justified in awarding the compensation, while the High

Court, according to him, without properly appreciating the reasonings adopted

by the Tribunal has interfered with the just order of the Tribunal. He also

contends that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was not maintainable

for not having obtained the leave of the Tribunal as required under Section 170

of the Act. He relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of Shankarayya ve

United India Insurance e Co. Ltd(1998 3 SCC 140). Ms Pankaj Bala Verma,

appearing for the respondent Insurance Company does not in fact dispute the

maintainability of the petition filed by the appellants under Section 163-A of the

Motor Vehicles Act but contends that the meaning, ascribed to the word

"accident" in the Workmen's Compensation Act by judicial pronouncements

cannot be applied to the word "accident" in the Motor Vehicles Act because the

object of the two Acts are different. She supported the judgment of the High

Court by contending that on the facts of the present appeal, the death of the

driver of the autorickshaw was caused by felonious acts of certain unknown

persons and the same is not caused by an accident arising out of the use of the

vehicle. Regarding the maintainability of the appeal, she submits that the

judgment of this Court was reported subsequent to the High, Court judgment,

hence no fault could be found with the impugned judgment on that score and no

such objection was taken in regard to the maintainability before the High

Court.***************************

18. In the instant case, as we have noticed the facts, we have no

hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the murder of the deceased

(Dasarath Singh) was due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle.

Therefore, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants were

entitled for compensation as claimed by them and the High Court was wrong in

coming to the conclusion that the death of Dasarath Singh was not caused by an

accident involving the use of motor vehicle.

19. This leaves us to consider the second point raised before us by

the counsel for the appellant. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the

appeal preferred by the Insurance Company purported to be under Section 173

of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable because prior permission of the

Court as required was not obtained by the appellants. In support of this

contention of the appellants, reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in the

case of Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. In the said judgment a

Division Bench of this Court held: (SCC Headnote)

"The Insurance Company when impleaded as a party by the

Court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only

if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 are found

to be satisfied and for that purpose, the Insurance Company has

to obtain an order in writing from the Tribunal and which should

be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless that procedure is

followed, the Insurance Company cannot have a wider defence

on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory

defence. It is true that the claimants themselves had joined

Respondent 1 Insurance Company in the claim petition but that

was done with a view to thrust the statutory liability on the

Insurance Company on account of the contract of the insurance.

That was not an order of the Court itself permitting the

Insurance Company which was impleaded to avail of a larger

defence on merits on being satisfied on the aforesaid two

conditions mentioned in Section 170. Consequently, it must be

held that on the facts of the present case, Respondent 1

Insurance Company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits

of the claim which was awarded by the Tribunal."

20. We respectfully agree with the ratio laid down in the above case and in

view of the fact that admittedly the Insurance Company had not obtained leave

from the Tribunal before filing the above appeal, we are of the opinion that the

appeal filed by the Insurance Company before the High Court was not

maintainable in law.

21. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal succeeds, the judgment

and order of the High Court dated 9-3-1998, is set aside and that of the Tribunal

dated 24-6-1996 is restored. The appellants are entitled to costs in all the

counts."

[10] The arguments advanced by Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the

respondent insurance company for consideration of the matter either under

Section 166 or Section 163 of the M.V. Act will not fall for consideration in the

matter of this nature and accordingly, the judgments placed by him are not

relevant.

[11] In view of the same, the matter needs reconsideration by the trial

Court as per procedure and this Court force that the claimants are entitled for

compensation unlike any other cases. Therefore, the claim under M.V. Act by

the claimants is maintainable and the same needs to be remanded back to the

concerned tribunal Court.

[12] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above

and the matter is remanded back for consideration as per procedure. Learned

Court below shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible in the light of

the afore-noted judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court placed by the learned

counsel for the appellants. The appellants shall be at liberty to place all

material evidence in support of their claim before the concerned Court below.

With the above observations and directions, the instant

appeal is partly allowed and the present case is remanded back for fresh

adjudication. Thus, the appeal is hereby disposed of. Resultantly, the

impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned trial

Court is set aside. Miscellaneous application(s) pending if any, shall also stand

closed.

JUDGE

Sabyasachi. G.

SABYASACHI GHOSH GHOSH Date: 2025.04.25 11:17:28 +05'30'