Tripura High Court
The Branch Manager vs Sri Arup Ghosh on 6 November, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP 96 OF 2025
The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company
Limited, Ward No. 39, House No. 390971, near Tripura
Gramin Bank, Bardowali, P.O. A.D. Nagar, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN-799003
(Insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-08-0592,
Maruti Suzuki Eeco)
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Arup Ghosh, son of Sri Swapan Ghosh, resident of
Madhya Krishnanagar, P.S. Belonia, District- South Tripura.
----Claimant-Respondent
2. Sri Bivash Datta, son of late Mantu Ram Datta, resident of
village- West Pilak, P.S. Baikhora, District-South Tripura
(Owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-08-0592,
Maruti Suzuki Eeco)
3. Sri Bivash Datta, son of late Mantu Ram Datta, resident of
village- West Pilak, P.S. Baikhora, District-South Tripura
(Driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-08-0592,
Maruti Suzuki Eeco)
4.
---- Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. De, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : None
Date of hearing & delivery : 06.11.2025
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : No
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
06/11/2025
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant- Insurance
Company against the impugned judgment and award dated
25.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1,
Belonia, South Tripura in case No. T.S. (MAC) 11 of 2024.
2. Heard Mr. K. De, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Insurance Company. None appears for the respondents.
3. The facts, in short outlined here is that, on 12.05.2023,
the claimant-respondent was while was proceeding towards
Santirbazar from Krishnanagar by driving his auto-rickshaw
bearing no. TR-08-C-1920, on the way at about 12.30 p.m. on
reaching near Manirampur bazaar, the offending Maruti Suzuki
Eeco vehicle bearing registration No. TR-08-0592, violently hit the
auto rickshaw of the claimant-respondent resulting which the
claimant-respondent sustained multiple grievous fracture injuries
on his body and his auto-rickshaw got crushed. Thereafter, he was
under medical supervision at GBP hospital from 12.05.2023 to
23.05.2023 where he also had undergone an operation in his
stomach. For the said accident and the injuries suffered, the
claimant-respondent filed a claim case before the learned Tribunal
for compensation.
On receipt of the claim application, the appellant-
insurance company as well as the owner-cum-driver of the
offending vehicle by filing their respective written statements
contested the claim application. In course of the proceeding,
witnesses were examined and cross-examined and documents
were also exhibited by the learned Tribunal.
Following the settled principles of law, the learned
Tribunal has quantified the compensation to the tune of Rs.
45,000/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application till the date of its realization.
Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said
judgment and award dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned
Tribunal in T.S. (MAC) 11 of 2024, the insurance company has
preferred this appeal with the following reliefs:
"a)Admit the appeal;
b) Call for the records from the Learned Tribunal Below;
c) Stay the operation of the impugned judgment and award dated
25.06.2025 in case no. T.S.(MAC) 11 of 2024 passed by the Learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Belonia;
d) After hearing the parties be pleased enough to set aside/quash and
modify the impugned judgment and award dated 25.06.2025 passed by
the Learned Tribunal in T.S.(MAC) 11 of 2024."
4. Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has
not considered maintainability of the claim petition on the ground
of limitation occurred in filing the claim case. Learned counsel has
also submitted that the accident occurred on 12.05.2023, but the
claim petition was filed on 04.05.2024 i.e. after almost 358 days
from the date of accident. Learned counsel also submitted that on
to that issue, the insurance company has filed an application for
dismissal of the claim petition since the same is barred by
limitation wherein it was contended that the accident took place on
12.05.2023 and in pursuance of the amendment, which came into
force on 01.04.2022, the claim petition needs be filed within a
period of six months, but the same has been filed after almost 358
days. In fine, learned counsel has urged this court to quash the
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal.
5. I have perused the entire record including the award
passed by the learned Tribunal.
6. On scrutiny of the record, it is seen that the application
by the insurance company was presented before the learned
Tribunal on 31.07.2024. Learned court below on 03.09.2024 has
received the written statement filed by the appellant-insurance
company and fixed the matter on 08.11.2024 and, disposed of the
case by passing an award on 25.06.2025. In the written
statement, the appellant-insurance company has categorically
stated that the claim petition has been filed after elapse of almost
358 days from the date of occurrence i.e. after the period of
limitation, hence, the same is barred by limitation as per
provisions laid down under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (amended as on 2019), which clearly implies that no
application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made
within six months of the occurrence of the accident. It is further
seen from the judgment and award that there is no whisper as to
the contention made by the appellant-insurance company on to
the point of maintainability due to delay in filing the claim petition.
This is a legal and technical issue which needs to be examined by
the court below and the same is apparently missing in the
proceeding.
7. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and
award dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in T.S.
(MAC) 11 of 2024, is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded
back to the learned Tribunal for proper examination and
appreciation. However, it is made clear that both the parties shall
be given a reasonable opportunity.
8. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant-
insurance company stands allowed and thus disposed of. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed. Send down the LCRs
forthwith.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR SAIKAT KAR
Date: 2025.11.13
03:19:45 -08'00'
