Tripura High Court
Sbi General Insurance Company Ltd vs Shri Rakhal Biswas And Another on 10 July, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App.44 of 2024
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.
..........Appellant(s)
Versus
Shri Rakhal Biswas and another
.......... Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Prabal Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Mr. Bijan Saha, Advocate
Ms. Sutapa Deb Barman, Advocate
Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
FINAL ORDER
10.07.2025
[1] Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
[2] The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and award dated 05.03.2024
passed in Case No. TS(MAC) 161 of 2022 by the Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, awarding
Rs.16,96,513/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs ninety six thousand five hundred
thirteen) only against the Appellant-Opposite Party No.2, SBI General
Insurance Company Limited with 7% interest per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 06.06.2022 till the date of
realization.
Page 2 of 7
[3] The brief fact of the claimant's case is that that on
02.05.2022 at about 2.40 pm when the claimant petitioner along with
his cousin brother Sudip Biswas were returning to his house at
Kanchannagar, Santirbazar from Santirbazar PS, South Tripura by a
motor cycle bearing No. TR-08-6160 and when they reached at Laogung
(near Garu Bazar) on Laogung-Betenga Road under Santirbazar PS at
that time one vehicle bearing No. TR-08-A-1768 (BOLERO) coming from
opposite direction with very rashly and negligently and with excessive
speed, dashed the aforesaid motor cycle. As a result, the claimant
petitioner sustained injuries on various parts of his body and the
claimant petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his right leg, right
hand and head and on several parts of his body and his right leg and
right hand has been broken into multiple pieces amongst other injuries.
Immediately, with the help of nearby people gathered therein and also
with the help of fire service the claimant petitioner along with his cousin
brother were initially taken to Shantir Bazar Hospital, South Tripura and
as their condition was very serious, the attending doctors have referred
the claimant petitioner to AGMC and GBP hospital, Agartala where they
were admitted on the same day of 02.05.2022 as an indoor patient and
claimant petitioner was treated therein w.e.f. 02.05.2022 to 01.06.2022
and thereafter the claimant petitioner was discharged from GB hospital
but he was not completely cured. Thereafter also he was on various
occasions, treated therein from time to time for a long period. It was
contended before the tribunal that he has been regularly visiting the
said AGMC and GBP hospital Agartala and his treatment has been still
going on and at any time he would have again been admitted in the
Page 3 of 7
hospital as an indoor patient and doctors of AGMC & GBP hospital
opined that he would have required more multiple surgeries on various
parts of his body. It was also stated that the accident took place due to
rash and negligence as well as use of the aforesaid offending vehicle
bearing No. TR-08-A-1768 (BOLERO).
[4] The case of the claimant was contested by the OP No.1, the
owner of the offending BOLERO and OP No.2, the S.B.I. General
Insurance Company Limited by filing written statements. Thereafter,
learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura,
Agartala, in Case No. TS(MAC) 161 of 2022, decided the case of the
claimant by the order dated 05.03.2024 in the following manner:
".......Hence, in my opinion the claimant is entitled to compensation of
(Rs.12,000/- + Rs.12,67,200/- + Rs.21,313/- + Rs.15,000/- +
Rs.50,000/- + + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.31,000/- +Rs.2,00,000/- ) =
Rs.16,96,513/- only.
Now, I have to decide who is liable to pay compensation.
In this context, Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that from
Ext. C, the insurance certificate, it can be found that the S.B.I. General
Insurance Co. Ltd. was insured with the OP No.2, the insurance
company and, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation.
From Ext. C, the insurance certificate, I find the S.B.I. General
Insurance Co. Ltd. had valid insurance certificate from 23.01.2022 to
22.01.2023 covering the date of accident on 02.05.2022 and OP No.2, is
the insurer of the said vehicle.
From Ext.B, the driving license, I find the driver of the offending
vehicle had valid driving license valid from 01.02.2021 to 31.01.2031
covering the date of accident on 02.05.2022.
From Ext.A, Registration Certificate, I find the SBI General
Insurance had valid registration certificate from valid from 09.04.2018
to 09.04.2033 covering the date of accident on 02.05.2022.
Thus, I find, the offending vehicle had valid documents like
Insurance certificate, registration certificate and driving licence.
Therefore, I am of the view that as the offending vehicle had valid
documents, hence, OP No.2 is liable to pay the compensation.
Accordingly issue No.(iii) is decided.
26. Issue No.(i): In this issue I have to decide whether the case is
maintainable.
Page 4 of 7
In this context, I find nothing to say that the case is not maintainable.
Hence, I am of the view that the claim petition is maintainable.
Accordingly, issue No.(i) is decided in affirmative and in favour
of
the claimant.
ORDER
27. It is ordered that, a total amount of Rs. 16,96,513/- (Rupees sixteen
lakh ninety six thousand five hundred thirteen only) is awarded in favour
of the petitioner as compensation. The OP No.2, The S.B.I. General
Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the vehicle bearing
registration No. TR-08-A1768 (BOLERO) is hereby directed to pay the
compensation as awarded. The OP No.2 is also directed to pay the
interest 7 % per annum on total awarded sum from the date of filing of
this petition i.e. on 06.06.2022 till the date of realization. Fifty(50)
percent of the awarded amount is to be fixed deposited for five years
and rest amount of compensation is to be released in favour of the
claimant in his bank account.
28. Thus, the claim petition is allowed on contest.
29. Let a copy of this award be supplied to the parties concerned on
free of cost....."
[5] Being aggrieved by the above-quoted award/order dated
05.03.2024, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
insurance-company seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Admit the appeal,
b) Call for the lower Court record of Case No.TS(MAC) 161 of 2022 from
the Court of Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala.
c) Issue notice upon the respondents,
AND
d) After giving an opportunity, your Lordship may be pleased to set
aside the impugned judgement/award dated 05.03.2024 passed by the
Ld. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, Tribunal
No.5, in Case No. T'S(MAC) 161 of 2022,
AND
In the mean time your Lordship be pleased to stay the further
proceedings of Case No. TS (MAC) 161 of 2022 ..........."
[6] Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant insurance
company submits that the amount of compensation is too high and
excessive and as such, the claim of the claimant is liable to be set
aside. He further contends that the claimant-respondent had failed to
prove rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle
bearing registration No. TR-08-A-1768(BOLERO). He further contends
that learned tribunal based on no specific income proof and about the
nature of profession being professed by the claimant, arrived at a
erroneous conclusion that the income of the claimant-respondent was
@Rs.12,000/- per month which is perverse and also submits that
learned tribunal wrongly awarded Rs.16,96,513/- as compensation
adding high interest rate of 7% per annum. It is also contended that
learned tribunal based on no cogent evidence decided that the disability
of the claimant respondent is 80% which is quite wrong, erroneous and
hence, the award passed by the learned tribunal is liable to be set
aside.
[7] On the contrary, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned
counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent opposes the submissions
made on behalf of the applicant-insurance company. He urges this
Court that the award passed by the learned tribunal should not be
interfered with.
[8] Heard the submissions made at the Bar. Perused the record.
[9] It is seen from the impugned judgment and order dated
05.03.2024 of the learned tribunal that from Exbt.1, the certified copy
of FIR and the ejahar (Ext.2), it was observed that FIR was filed by the
brother of the claimant stating that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of offending TR-08-A-1768
(BOLERO). From Ext.4, it was observed by the tribunal that, offending
vehicle and its documents were seized in connection with connected
criminal case. From Ext.7, the charge sheet, it was observed by the
tribunal that police after investigation filed charge sheet against the
offending driver namely Kartik Datta, driver of the vehicle TR-08-A-
1768(BOLERO) due to rash and negligent driving. OPW.1 Sri Rajesh
Baidya in his cross examination stated that he is owner of Bolero
Vehicle bearing No. TR018A1768 and the vehicle caused an accident at
Lawgang, Santirbazar, South Tripura and an FIR was also lodged in
respect of the said accident and charge sheet was filed against the
driver of the vehicle namely Kartik Datta and only Kartik Datta is charge
sheeted as an accused in that case and he did not challenge the charge
sheet lodged by police and the driver namely Kartik Datta was plying
his vehicle and said Kartik Datta also did not challenge the charge sheet
filed by the police. No evidence was adduced by OPW-2. Hence, this
Court is of the view that learned tribunal has rightly came to a
conclusion that the claimant sustained injury due to rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle bearing No. TR-08-A-1768 (BOLERO) which had
valid documents like insurance certificate, registration certificate and
driving license and therefore, OP No.2 i.e. the appellant herein which is
the insurer of the said vehicle, is liable to pay compensation.
[10] Insofar as, all other aspects of the impugned judgment
passed by the learned tribunal are concerned, this Court is of the view
that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated
05.03.2024 passed in Case No. TS(MAC) 161 of 2022 by the Member,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, awarding
Rs.16,96,513/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs ninety six thousand five hundred
thirteen) only against the Appellant-Opposite Party No.2, SBI General
Insurance Company Limited with 7% interest per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 06.06.2022 till the date of
realization. Thus, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
[11] In view of the above, the compensation of Rs.16,96,513/-
(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs ninety six thousand five hundred thirteen)
awarded by the tribunal below shall be deposited by the insurance
company with Registry of the High Court of Tripura as early as possible
preferably within a period of one month from today, if not paid already.
However, it is made clear that on such deposit, the claimant is at liberty
to withdraw the same unconditionally as per procedure.
[12] With the above observation, the appeal stands dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. Registry to do the needful as per procedure.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi G.
SABYASACHI GHOSH GHOSH
Date: 2025.07.14 16:34:23 +05'30'
