Tripura High Court
Go Digit General Insurance Limited vs Sri Nirendra Tripura on 28 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App. No.104 of 2024
Go Digit General Insurance Limited,
to be represented by its Manager,
First Floor, Jackson Gate Building,
Lenin Sarani, Agartala, Pin-799001,
P.S.-West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
(Insurer of vehicle No.TR-08-3821 TVS Auto-Rickshaw)
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Nirendra Tripura,
S/o Late Mohan Kumar Tripura,
resident of Mahim Sardar Para,
P.S.-Manubazar, District-South Tripura.
----Claimant Respondent
2. Sri Chiranjit Tripura,
S/o Sri Gouranga Tripura,
resident of Das Colony, Chalitachari,
P.S.-Manubazar, District-South Tripura.
(Driver of vehicle No.TR-08-3821 TVS Auto-Rickshaw)
---- Driver Respondent(s)
3. Sri Karan Tripura
S/o Khagendra Tripura @ Kharendra Tripura,
resident of Chatakchari, Sonaichari,
P.S.-Sabroom, District-South Tripura.
(Owner of vehicle No.TR-08-3821 TVS Auto-Rickshaw)
----Owner Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shubhajit Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bibek Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Saswati Nag, Adv.
Ms. Ruma Majumder, Adv.
Date of hearing : 20.05.2025
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 28.05.2025
Whether fit for
reporting : NO
Page 2 of 11
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment
and award dated 22.03.2024 delivered by Learned Member,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Sabroom in
connection with Case No.T.S. (MAC) 08 of 2023.
2. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Shubhajit
Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company. Also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Bibek Banerjee and
Learned Counsel, Ms. Ruma Majumder appearing on behalf of
the respondent-claimant petitioner and Learned Counsel, Ms.
Saswati Nag appearing on behalf of the respondent-owner of
the vehicle.
3. At the time of hearing of argument, Learned
Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company drawn the
attention of this Court that before the Learned Tribunal below
the owner and the driver did not produce any oral/documentary
evidence on record in support of their defence. Learned Counsel
for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that the
Learned Tribunal below simply on the basis of certified copy of
Insurance Certificate which was marked as Exbt.-13, 13(i)
delivered the judgment and award without examining the
documents of the offending vehicle as well as the driving
license. Learned Counsel further submitted that until and unless
the documents as well as the driving license are proved, in that
case it would be difficult on the part of the appellant-Insurance
Page 3 of 11
Company to pay the award to the respondent-claimant
petitioner. It was further submitted that at the time of accident
the deceased was drunken i.e. the deceased himself was
responsible for the accident but the Learned Tribunal below did
not consider the same and fastened the liability of payment of
compensation upon the appellant-Insurance Company for which
the interference of this Court is needed. Finally, Learned
Counsel urged this Court to set aside the judgment and award
and to remand back the matter to the Learned Tribunal below.
4. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the
respondent-claimant petitioner submitted that although the
appellant-Insurance Company submitted written
objection/statement but they did not adduce any documentary
evidence on record. As such, no reliance can be placed upon the
written statement filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.
Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant petitioner also
submitted that the claimant petitioner proved the certified copy
of the Insurance certificate of the offending vehicle although the
owner did not adduce any documentary evidence on record and
in that case there is scope for pay and recovery policy. So,
Learned Counsel urged for dismissal of this appeal.
Learned Counsel, Ms. Nag although appeared on behalf
of the respondent-owner of the vehicle but did not submit
anything rather sought for accommodation for hearing.
5. In the case at hand, the respondent-claimant
petitioner filed one claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act,
Page 4 of 11
1988 before the Learned Tribunal below. According to the
claimant petitioner on 01.12.2020 at about 22:30 hours one
Gerendra Tripura was returning back to his house at Mahim
Sardar Para, Manubazar by boarding an auto-rickshaw bearing
registration No.TR-08-3821 being driven by Chiranjit Tripura
through Uttar Betaga Pucca road at Karichandra Para under
Sabroom police station when the said vehicle met with an
accident due to plying of the vehicle in excessive speed for
which said Gerendra Tripura received multiple injuries. After the
accident, the driver immediately fled away from the place of
occurrence instead of shifting the injured to the hospital. On the
following day, i.e. on 02.12.2020 at about 5:00 hours, the
claimant petitioner found the deceased lying dead on the bridge
of the said road. Thereafter, the dead body was recovered by
the police and post-mortem was conducted and it was alleged
that the deceased succumbed to his injuries due to road traffic
accident. Police triggered up investigation and on completion of
investigation submitted charge-sheet against Chiranjit Tripura,
the respondent-driver for his prosecution punishable under
Section 279/338/304A of IPC and Section 181/187 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Before the Learned Tribunal below, the
appellant-Insurance Company, the respondents-owner and the
driver of the vehicle appeared and filed their written statements
denying the claim of the claimant petitioner. Upon the pleadings
of the parties, Learned Tribunal below framed the following
issues:-
Page 5 of 11
"(i) Whether suit is maintainable in its present
form and nature?
(ii) Whether on 01.12.2020 at about 10:30 p.m. on
Uttar Betaga Pucca road at Karichandra Para under
Sabroom Police Station any road traffic accident
occurred due to rash and/or negligent driving of a
vehicle bearing registration No.TR-08-3821 (TVS
Auto Rickshaw) by Respondent No.1?
(iii) Whether one Gerendra Tripura succumbed to
injury/injuries in consequence of such road traffic
accident?
(iv) Whether Claimant Petitioner would be entitled
to get compensation sought for due to the death of
his deceased brother?
(v) Whether Respondents would be liable to pay
compensation?
(vi) To what other relief(s) the parties are
entitled?"
6. To substantiate the issues, the claimant petitioner
examined as PW-1 and relied upon some documents which were
marked as exhibits.
Exhibits of the claimant petitioner:
1) Exhibit-1-Original copy of Death certificate of
deceased Gerendra Tripura;
2) Exhibit-2-Original copy of Death certificate of
deceased Mohan Kumar Tripura;
3) Exhibit-3-Photocopy of family ration card;
4) Exhibit-4-Extract copy of ROR issued by
Satchand R.D. Block, South Tripura;
5) Exhibit-5, 5(i) to 5(xi)-Certified copy of detail
accident report;
6) Exhibit-6, 6(i)-Certified copy of printed form
of FIR;
7) Exhibit-7-Certified copy of FIR;
8) Exhibit-8-Certified copy of inquest report of
deceased Gerendra Tripura;
9) Exhibit-9, 9(i), 9(iii)-Certified copy of PM
report;
10) Exhibit-10, 10(i)-Certified copy of forensic
report;
Page 6 of 11
11) Exhibit-11-Certified copy of forwarding
report addressed by Director cum Chemical
Examiner, Tripura State Forensic
Laboratory through SDPO Sabroom;
12) Exhibit-12, 12(i) to 12(iv)-Certified copy of
Charge sheet;
13) Exhibit-13, 13(i)-Certified copy of Insurance
policy certificate of offending autorickshaw
bearing registration No.TR-08-3821."
7. In spite of allowing opportunity, no
oral/documentary evidences were adduced by any of the
opposite parties and finally on conclusion of the proceeding,
Learned Tribunal below passed the judgment and award. The
operative portion of the judgment and award of the Learned
Tribunal below runs as follows:
"18. In the result, petition stands allowed to the
following extent:
AWARD
19. (i) Loss of dependency:(M-17×10,000×12
months)=Rs.20,40,000/-
(ii) Loss of consortium:- Rs.40,000/-
(iii) Funeral expenses:- Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Loss of estate:- Rs.15,000/-
(v) Expenses for transportation of dead body:-
Rs.10,000/-
--------------
Total=Rs.21,20,000/-
(twenty-one lac twenty thousand only)
20. So, total amount of compensation would stand at
Rs.21,20,000/-(twenty-one lac twenty thousand only)
along with interest to be added at the rate of 9% per
annum from the filing date of petition (30.03.2023) till
realization of awarded compensation and the same
shall be paid by respondent No.3 to claimant-
petitioner.
21. The awarded amount of compensation along with
accrued amount of interest shall be transferred by
respondent No.3 to the official bank account of this
Tribunal exclusively maintained for the purpose of
compensation payment pertaining to MAC Cases
through RTGS/NEFT.
22. Petitioner shall open his self bank account in any
nationalized bank nearby his residence and furnish the
details of the same to the Nazarat Section of the O/o
Additional District & Sessions Judge, South Tripura,
Sabroom. On realization of the awarded compensation
along with the interest, 75% of total amount shall
remain in fixed deposit in the single name of claimant-
petitioner till the period of next five years and the
remaining 25% shall be credited directly by the bank
in the saving account of claimant-petitioner.
23. In view of section 168(2)(3) of the Act, copies of
this judgement and award be supplied to the parties
within a period of 15(fifteen) days invariably by the
concerned dealing Clerk of this Tribunal and
respondent No.3 shall make payment of compensation
in adherence to the aforesaid terms of order/award
within 30(thirty) days from today."
8. Challenging the said judgment and award this
appeal is preferred.
9. I have gone through the record of the Learned
Tribunal below and also the judgment and award delivered by
the Learned Tribunal below.
10. In the memo of appeal though so many assertions
were made by the appellant-Insurance Company but at the time
of the hearing of argument Learned Counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company only confined his argument to the fact that
the documents of the offending vehicle and the driving license
were not produced by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle
for marking of exhibits. So, Learned Counsel urged for
remanding back the matter to the Learned Court below.
Learned Counsel also submitted that the deceased was drunk at
the time of accident and there was contributory negligence on
his part.
11. In this regard, I have seen the judgment and
award delivered by the Learned Tribunal Below. Although the
medical officer initially opined that there was chance that the
cause of death was probably due to ethanol intake at the time
of death approximately within 12 hours which was subjected to
SFSL report but in the SFSL report it was opined that there was
no sign or presence of any ethyl alcohol, rather the same was
found to be negative. So, Learned Tribunal below did not
believe the said fact and ultimately delivered the judgment and
award.
12. In a case of this nature, it is the duty of the
owner/driver of the offending vehicle to produce all the relevant
documents of the vehicle including the driving license for
marking of exhibits. Because, if the claim petition is allowed, in
that case it is the liability of the owner to pay the compensation
to the claimant but, since the vehicle remains insured with the
Insurance Company so, on behalf of the owner it is the duty of
the Insurance Company to indemnify the compensation to the
claimant petitioner. Here, in the case at hand, surprisingly it
appears that before the Learned Tribunal below both the owner
and the appellant-Insurance Company appeared and filed their
written statement but ultimately at the time of recording of
evidence no oral/documentary evidences were adduced by
either of the contesting respondents. So, based on the Accident
Information Report (for short, A.I.R.), Learned Tribunal below
delivered the judgment. Legally there is no bar to deliver
judgment based on the A.I.R. but at the same time without
hearing the other side or perusal of the relevant documents
there is no scope to allow any compensation because if it is
found that the offending vehicle does not have any such
documents relating to the claim petition in that case it would be
difficult on the part of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to
allow the claim petition.
In this case since the owner of the offending vehicle
appeared so, it was the duty of the Learned Tribunal below to
ensure production of those documents by the owner of the
offending vehicle. If it is found that in spite of allowing
opportunity the owner of the offending vehicle fails to produce
any relevant documents of the vehicle like registration,
pollution, tax token, driving license etc., in that case the liability
may be fastened upon the owner of the offending vehicle in
case of non-availability of Insurance Certificate. In this case,
the claimant petitioner produced the certified copy of the
Insurance Certificate which was marked as Exbt.-13, 13(i) but
there is no finding as to whether the vehicle had the required
documents or not. There is also no observation by the Learned
Tribunal below that the owner failed to produce the documents
and as such, the Learned Tribunal below allowed the claim
petition subject to pay and recovery policy by the Insurance
Company from the owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, it
appears that the Learned Tribunal below committed error in
delivering the judgment without ensuring production of those
documents by the owner of the offending vehicle before
fastening of liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company.
13. So, considering all, it appears that the matter
needs to be remanded back to the Learned Tribunal below to
give opportunity to the OP owner and the driver to produce all
the relevant documents of the offending vehicle including the
driving license so as to arrive at a definite finding by the
Learned Tribunal below regarding fixing liability of payment of
compensation. Since, Learned Counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company only confined his argument to the extent as
stated above, as such, no other points are discussed
accordingly.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment
and award dated 22.03.2024 delivered by Learned Member,
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, South Tripura, Sabroom is
hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Learned Tribunal
below with a direction to record oral/documentary evidence of
the OP owner and the driver and thereafter to deliver a fresh
judgment in accordance with law. If the owner and the driver of
the offending vehicle in spite of allowing opportunity remains
absent and in that case if the Learned Tribunal below only
based upon certificate of insurance decides to allow the claim
petition, then the Learned Tribunal below first of all shall have
to be ascertained as to whether the pay and recovery policy can
be applied or not. If the Learned Tribunal below comes to the
conclusion that pay and recovery policy can be applied only in
that case in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court the Learned Tribunal below can ask the Insurance
Company to pay compensation to the claimant petitioner,
otherwise not.
The respondent-owner and the driver shall appear
before the Learned Tribunal below on 27.06.2025 and shall
produce all the relevant documents of the offending vehicle
including the driving license for marking of exhibits. Thereafter,
the Learned Tribunal below shall give an opportunity to the
claimant petitioner and the appellant-Insurance Company to
cross-examine the OP owner and the driver, if any, if they are
so advised.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of this
judgment.
With this observation, the instant appeal is
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
Snigdha
MOUMIT Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
A DATTA Date: 2025.05.29
17:33:36 +05'30'
