[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Nargis Aktar on 8 December, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App. No.69 of 2024
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Divisional Manager, the new India Assurance Co.
Ltd., 4, Mantribari Road, P.S. West Agartala, District - West Tripura,
Pin-799001, (Insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.TR-03-E-8981).
......... Appellant(s)
-Versus-
1. Smt. Nargis Aktar,
W/o Lt. Nazrul Islam, resident of Thakurmura, P.S. Sonamura,
District - Sepahijala Tripura.
2. Nasrin Sultana,
D/o Lt. Nazrul Islam, resident of Thakurmura, P.S. Sonamura,
District - Sepahijala Tripura.
3. Nusrat Sultana,
D/o Lt. Nazrul Islam, resident of Thakurmura, P.S. Sonamura,
District - Sepahijala Tripura.
(Claimant respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are minor daughters and being
represented by their mother appellant No.1, Nargis Aktar as the
natural guardian)
4. Jahangir Hossain,
S/o Lt. Abdul Sovan, resident of Thakurmura, P.S. Sonamura,
District - Sepahijala Tripura.
5. Delowar Hossain,
S/o Alfu Miah, resident of Khedabari, P.S. Sonamura, District -
Sepahijala Tripura (Owner of the offending motor bike bearing no.
TR-07-A-6125).
6. The Regional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hero-Motor Crop Vertical, Delhi Dox,
803A, 8th Floor Tower, C - Konnecus Building, Opposite of New
Delhi Rail Station, Bhavhuti Marg, (Insurer of the offending motor
bike bearing no. TR-07-A-6125).
Notice served upon to - The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
represented by the Divisional Manager, Agartala Division, 42,
Akhaura Road, P.S. West Agartala, District - West Tripura.
7. Jhangir Hossain,
S/o Late Abdul Sovan, resident of Thakurmura, W/No.2, P.S.
Sonamura, District - Sepahijala Tripura (Owner of offending
Scooty bearing No.TR-03-E-8981).
8. Akater Hossain,
S/o Abdul Soban, resident of Village - Khedabari, P.S. Sonamura,
District - Sepahijala Tripura.
........Respondent(s)
Page 2 of 7
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, Advocate,
Mr. Kushal Deb, Advocate,
Mr. M. Dey, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasanta Kr. Pal, Advocate,
Mr. Asim Kumar Deb, Advocate,
Ms. Maitri Majumder, Advocate,
Mr. Abhinandan Pal, Advocate.
Date of hearing and
delivery of Judgment & Order : 8th December, 2025.
Whether fit for reporting : YES NO
√
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
[2] The appeal has been preferred by the New India Assurance
Company Limited, the insurer of the Scooty (Hero Pleasure) bearing
No.TR-03-E-8981 on the ground of non-reduction of compensation on
the ground of contributory negligence of the rider of the said scooty
who was the deceased in this case, and also to exempt them from
making any payment of compensation.
[3] The claim of the claimant-respondents are that on
26.06.2017, when the deceased Nazrul Islam was returning by the said
scooty towards his house from Khedabari, another motorcycle bearing
No.TR-07-A-6125 (Hero Honda Glamour) coming from opposite direction
dashed his scooty. As a result, he sustained injuries. He was first taken
to Sonamura hospital and then to GBP Hospital, Agartala, where he
ultimately succumbed to his injuries.
[4] The claim petition has been filed by the wife, two daughters
and the father of the deceased. The father of the deceased (respondent
no.4) is actually the registered owner of the said scooty and he has
been added in the proceeding in two capacities - i.e. (i) as claimant
dependant of the deceased and, (ii) as owner of the scooty.
[5] The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the death
certificate of the deceased, computed his age to be 27 years at the time
of accident and took his monthly income to be Rs.12,000/- as skilled
labourer, finally assessed the compensation to the tune of
Rs.27,60,400/- and directed both the insurer of the said scooty and the
motorcycle to make the payment in equal proportion. There is no
dispute regarding method of quantum of compensation as assessed by
the learned tribunal below.
[6] The only challenge in this appeal is when admittedly there
was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased according to
both the Investigating Officer and also the learned Tribunal as both the
scooty and said motorcycle were responsible for the accident, 50% of
the total compensation as assessed ought to have been deducted on the
ground of such contributory negligence of the deceased and the New
India Assurance Company Limited ought to have been exempted from
making any payment of the compensation.
[7] Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, learned counsel, appearing on
behalf of the appellant-insurance company submitted in the same line.
[8] Mr. Asim Kumar Deb, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.6-the National Insurance Company Limited (insurer of
said motorcycle), submits that in compliance with the judgment of the
learned Tribunal they have already paid the 50% amount and,
therefore, there is no further liability on their part to make any further
payment.
[9] In this case, on perusal of the pleading of the claimants as
well as the deposition of the PW-1 i.e. wife of the deceased, it appears
that said petitioner in both the claim petition and in her evidence
admitted that both the said scooty as well as the motorcycle were
responsible for the accident and in her cross-examination also she
admitted that her husband was the rider of said scooty. The
Investigating Authority after completion of the investigation of
connected Police case bearing Sonamura P.S. case No. 57 of 2017,
submitted the charge sheet with the observation that both the deceased
as well as the rider of said motorcycle were jointly responsible for the
accident. There has been no challenge from the side of claimants
regarding submission of said charge sheet, rather they themselves
relied on the same.
[10] Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel, however, tries to convince the
Court that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased in riding the scooty and, therefore, the learned Tribunal was
justified in not deducting any amount on that ground. Learned counsel,
Mr. Pal, also relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered
in case of Sushma Versus Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Others [Civil
Appal No.(s) 10648 of 2024] decided along with four other civil
appeals on 19.09.2024. This Court has meticulously gone through the
said decision.
[11] In that case, a car collided with a 14-wheeler trailer truck
which was left in abandoned condition in the middle of the highway
without any warning signs in the form of indicators or parking lights and
for that reason such collision took place which resulted into the death of
three passengers and the driver of the said car on the spot and another
passenger was seriously injured. All of them filed claim petition before
the Tribunal but the Tribunal while deciding the same held that it was a
case of contributory negligence by the drivers of both the vehicles as the
driver of the car had contributed to the accident because he had failed
to take appropriate preventive measures so as to avoid the collision. The
High Court maintained the said findings of the Tribunal and finally the
Hon'ble Apex Court in those appeals held that such findings of
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the said car as
observed by the Tribunal and the High Court were perverse. Finally the
Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the finding of deduction of 50% of
compensation by the Tribunal and the High Court.
[12] In the case in hand, however, there is no such material
placed in the record either through pleading or through evidence that
rider of the scooty i.e. the deceased was not at fault in riding it. Rather
it has been specific assertion of the claimant-respondents that both the
riders of the scooty as well as the motorcycle were responsible for the
said accident. Moreover, when learned Tribunal also held that both the
vehicles were responsible for the said accident, the claimants have not
challenged the said finding before the High Court.
[13] In such a situation, Court is inclined to hold that the award
passed by the learned Tribunal below was perverse only to the extent
that some amount ought to have been deducted by the learned Tribunal
on the ground of contributory negligence which it had missed out.
Normally, when there is equal contribution of both the drivers in the
accident, 50% is deducted. Therefore, in absence of any contra material
it is held that the amount of compensation ought to have been reduced
to the extent of 50% on the ground of contributory negligence.
[14] In case of Sri Krishna Vishweshwar Hegde Versus
General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
(2008) 15 SCC 771, the tribunal fixed the responsibility of the accident
on the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident at the ratio
of 50:50 but in appeal, the High Court disturbed said finding and
increased the liability of the appellant to the extent of 70%. In appeal
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the findings of the High Court was
interfered with and the ratio of responsibility to the extent of 50:50 was
maintained.
[15] Here the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.27,60,400/- and 50% thereof comes to Rs.13,80,200/-. In view of
above, the award as passed by learned Tribunal is interfered with. It is
held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to get compensation to
the tune of Rs.13,80,200/- along with the same rate of interest as
awarded by the learned Tribunal. The apportionment of the
compensation amongst the respondent-claimants as made by the
Tribunal is not interfered with and orders on fixed deposits are also not
disturbed for absence of any challenge in this regard.
[16] 50% amount is already deducted on the ground of
contributory negligence of the rider of the scooty, therefore, the
appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited is exempted from
making the payment. The modified amount of award will be paid by the
National Insurance Company Limited, if not already paid. The amount, if
any, deposited by the appellant in the Registry in terms of any order
passed in this appeal, may be returned to them following due procedure.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of. Pending
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Reconsign the record of the learned Tribunal with copy of
this judgment.
JUDGE
Munna MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2025.12.11 10:13:20 +05'30'
