Tripura High Court
The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Indra Datta Ghosh And 3 Ors on 11 August, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC.App 47 of 2025
The National Insurance Company Ltd.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Indra Datta Ghosh and 3 Ors.
---Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Asim Kumar Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Saikat Saha, Advocate.
Mr. Saugat Datta, Advocate.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 11.08.2025
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
[1] This is an appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act against
impugned Award dated 06.11.2024 passed in T.S. (MAC) 40 of 2022 by
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Belonia (Tribunal
No.1), for modifying the award.
[2] Brief facts leading to this case, as projected in the claim petition,
is that on 22.12.2021 at about 1740 hours the deceased was having talk with a
lady standing in fornt of their house at that time one bus bearing registration
No.TR-03-1377, herein after referred as the offending vehicle, coming at a
high speed and being driven in a rash ad negligent manner knocked down the
deceased causing severe injuries. Immediately deceased was taken to Baikhora
Hospital where he was declared dead. It has been alleged that the driver of the
offending vehicle in spite of having knowledge that said area is a crowded and
heavily populated area had driven the offending vehicle at a high speed. In this
connection a criminal case vide Baikhora PS case No.2021 BKR 035 was also
registered. The claimant petitioner being the wife, mother and son of
deceased, therefore approached this court seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.30,38,000/-.
[3] The OP No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle has
contested the suit by filing written statement and apart from denying all the
allegations has contended that he was holding all the relevant documents of
the offending vehicle and it was insured with the OP No.2 (National Insurance
Company Ltd).
[4] OP No.2 has also contested the suit and put the other parties in
strict proof of their respective claim.
[5] With a view to decide the claim of the claimant petitioners
following issues were framed :-
ISSUES
(a) Whether Rajjit Ghosh died in a road traffic accident which
occurred on 12.12.2021 at about 1740 hours at West Charakbai
under Baikhora PS due to rash and negligent driving of the bus
bearing registration No.TR-03-1377?
(b) Whether the claimant petitioners are the legal representative of
deceased Ranjit Ghosh?
(c) Whether the claimant petitioners are entitle to get any
compensation under MV Act and if so, to what extent and who shall
be liable to pay the same?
[6] The learned court below after dealing with the issues so framed
and after examining the records has passed the impugned order dated
06.11.2024 in the following manner:
OR DER
In the result, claim is awarded in following terms :-
(i) Claimant petitioners are entitled to get the award of
Rs.20,86,000/- only(Twenty lacks Eighty Six thousand) only with 6%
Simple interest per annum from the date of registration of claim i.e,
w.e.f. 08.08.2022 till the date of realization thereof.
(ii) 50% of the share each of the claimant petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in
the award be invested by purchasing separate Fixed Deposit
certificate from any Nationalized Bank at least for the next 5 years
and no loan or advance or premature withdrawal shall be allowed
without prior sanction of this Tribunal. However, the claimant
petitioner shall have the liberty to withdraw the monthly interest
therefrom. Rest part of award be directly transferred to her
individual bank account;
(iii) 75% of the share of the claimant petitioner No.3 in the award
also be invested by purchasing separate Fixed Deposit certificate
with auto renewal facility from any Nationalized Bank at least for the
next 5 years and no loan or advance or premature withdrawal shall
be allowed without prior sanction of this Tribunal. However, the
claimant petitioner No.1 shall have the liberty to withdraw the
monthly interest therefrom. Rest part of award be directly
transferred to her individual bank account;
The OP No.1 being the spouse of the deceased shall exclusively be
entitled to get the amount awarded under the head loss of
consortium.
The OP No.2, i.e., The National Insurance Company Limited shall
deposit the awarded amount along with interest thereon within one
month to this Tribunal.
[7] It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that, O.P.No.1 as
owner-respondent No.1 of this appeal of the registered offending Bus bearing
registration No.TR-03-1377 contested the claim petition by filing written
statement denying all the allegations of the claim petition contended that at the
time of alleged accident the vehicle had all the valid documents of the
offending vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P.No.2, the
National Insurance Company Lt. (appellant of this appeal) covering the period
of accident.
[8] It is further contended that appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
as Opposite Party No.2, also contested the claim petition by filing written
statement and denying all the allegations made in the claim petition
particularly stating in paragraph No.3 that at the time of alleged accident, the
victim (who subsequently expired) was not at the age of 33 years and also that
he was an employee under M/S.Debnath Rubber of Baikhora Bazar having
monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and thus prayed for strictly proof to that
matters with supporting documents during trial. O.P.No.2, also denied in
paragraph No.15 of the written statement stating that the Driver of offending
vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of driving the offending
vehicle on the date of alleged accident and moreover, the alleged accident was
occurred outside the route permit area i.e. at Bikhora under Belonia Sub-
Division since as per route permit, Exbt.C, the said vehicle was permitted to
drive the vehicle from Rajarbag to Nagerjala Motorstand (i.e. Agartala) via
Bisramganj and thereby the O.P.No.2, National Insurance Company Ltd. is
not liable to pay compensation to the claimants, but the owner of the vehicle is
liable to pay compensation, if any awarded by the Ld.Tribunal. The
O.P.Insurance Company also denied stating that compensation claimed by the
claimant-respondents amounting to Rs.30,38,000/- is highly exorbitant and
excessive.
[9] To support his case, learned counsel for the appellant has placed
his reliance in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the apex court dated
18.12.2008 in National Insurance Co.Ltd versus Rattani and others where the
apex court has observed in the following manner:
13. The question as to whether burden of proof has been discharged
by a party to the lis or not would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise,
sufficient materials have been brought on record so as to enable a
court to arrive at a definite conclusion, it is idle to contend that the
party on whom the burden of proof lay would still be liable to
produce direct evidence to establish that the deceased and the
injured passengers were gratuitous passengers.
As indicated hereinbefore, the First Information Report as such may
or may not be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at
a finding in regard to the question raised by the appellant herein,
but, when the First Information Report itself has been made a part of
the claim petition, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the
same can be looked into for the aforementioned purpose.
[10] On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-
respondents has contended before this court that the impugned order dated
06.11.2024 is just and proper and needs no interference from this court. He
further prays to dismiss the appeal of the court by confirming the impugned
order of the learned court below.
[11] Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[12] The arguments now sought to be urged by the learned counsel for
the appellant, having not been advanced before the learned Tribunal, cannot
be permitted to be raised for the first time in appeal, particularly when they
pertain to factual issues already adjudicated upon. An appellate court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction, ordinarily refrains from entertaining fresh
contentions of a factual nature that were never urged or substantiated at the
trial stage. Moreover, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
appellant on Para 13 is held to be misconceived and inapplicable to the present
case.
[13] In view of the above, and there being no illegality, perversity, or
material irregularity in the findings of the learned Tribunal, the appeal is
found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned
Award dated 06.11.2024 passed in T.S. (MAC) 40 of 2022 by Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Belonia (Tribunal No.1). As a
sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
closed.
[14] The deposit of the awarded amount, if not already made, shall be
effected within one month from today. The claimants shall be at liberty to
withdraw the awarded sum unconditionally, in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK DAS DIPAK DAS
Date: 2025.08.13
12:11:30 +05'30'
