[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Tripura High Court

Smt. Menaka Reang vs Sri Swapan Kumar Paul on 7 February, 2026

                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                        MAC App. No.12 of 2024

1. Smt. Menaka Reang, aged about 55 years,
   W/o Late Debabrata Reang,
2. Sri Deblin Reang, aged about 25 years,
   S/o Late Debabrata Reang
   Both of Madhya Kathalia,
   Sub-Division-Santirbazar, Bokafa Madhya,
   Kathalia, South Tripura,
   Pin: 799144 (Permanent address)
  Presently residing at
  Sri Deblin Reang,
  S/o Late Debabrata Reang,
  C/o Sri Anupam Reang
  Of Advisor Chowmuhani,
  Krishnanagar, P.O. Agartala,
  District:West Tripura (present address)
                                       ----Claimant petitioners-Appellant(s)
                                  Versus
1. Sri Swapan Kumar Paul,
   S/o: Late K.B. Paul,
   Of A.D. Nagar Road No.6,
   P.S.: A.D. Nagar, West Tripura, Agartala.
  (Owner of the vehicle TR-02-D-1840 Truck)
2. The Divisional Manager,
   United Insurance Company Ltd.
   Old R.M.S. Chowmuhani, Agartala,
   Dist. West Tripura.
  (Insurer of TR-02D-1840 Truck)
3. Mr. Tharfu Mog,
   S/o Kandia Mog,
   Aloychara, Manpathar, Shantirbazar,
   Pin-799114, South Tripura
  (owner of the used vehicle bearing No.TR-03E-6595)
4. The Divisional Manager
   Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
   HGB Road near Sarkar Nursing Home,
   P.S.: West Agartala, P.O.: Agartala
   District-West Tripura
  (Insurer of the used vehicle bearing No.TR-03E-6595)

                                                         ----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)               :       Mr. Diptanu Debnath, Adv.
For Respondent(s)              :       Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, Adv.
                                       Mr. Subham Majumder, Adv.
Date of hearing
and delivery of
Judgment & Order               :       07.02.2026

Whether fit for
reporting                      :       NO

                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

                        Judgment & Order (Oral)

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 is preferred by the appellant-claimant petitioners challenging the

judgment and award dated 20.09.2023 delivered by Learned Member,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 5, West Tripura, Agartala in

connection with case No.T.S. (MAC) 39 of 2019. By the said judgment

and award, Learned Tribunal below has awarded a sum of

Rs.43,96,815/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum w.e.f.

19.02.2019 and fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon

the respondent-United Insurance Company Ltd.

2. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Diptanu Debnath appearing on

behalf of the appellant-claimant petitioners. Also heard Learned

Counsel, Mr. Pradyumna Gautam appearing on behalf of the

respondent-United Insurance Company Ltd. and Learned Counsel, Mr.

Subham Majumder appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-owner

of the offending vehicle. None appeared on behalf of the other

respondents in spite of service of notice.

3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant-

claimant petitioners drawn the attention of this court that though the

Learned Tribunal below determined the amount of compensation at

Rs.73,28,024/-, but at the time of delivery of the award, Learned

Tribunal below deducted 40% from the said amount towards

contributory negligence of the deceased, for which the present appeal

has been preferred by the appellant-claimant petitioners before this

Court. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant-

claimant petitioners that from the evidence on record, it is transpired

that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased

at the time of accident. Rather, due to the negligence of the driver of

the offending Truck bearing No.TR-02D-1840 the accident took place.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant petitioners further

submitted that the Learned Tribunal below, misinterpreting the

evidence on record, has wrongly deducted 40% from the amount of

compensation towards contributory negligence, which compelled the

appellant-claimant petitioners to file the present appeal. So, Learned

Counsel urged for interference of this Court to enhance the award of

compensation determined by the Learned Tribunal below removing

deduction of 40% of the amount.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

No.1 i.e. the owner of the Truck only submitted that his vehicle was

duly insured on the day of alleged occurrence of offence and as such,

he will be abide by the direction of this Court.

5. Learned Counsel, Mr. Pradyumna Gautam appearing on

behalf of the respondent-United Insurance Company Ltd. submitted

that he had also appeared before the Learned Tribunal below and the

Insurance Company took all endeavour to substantiate the defence and

the Officer of the Insurance Company had also appeared before the

Learned Tribunal below. Learned Counsel, Mr. Gautam further

submitted that the Learned Tribunal below rightly decided the issues

and delivered the judgment and award and there is no scope to

interfere with the same.

6. The present appellant-claimant petitioners filed the claim

petition before the Learned Tribunal below with the assertions that on

06.12.2018, Sri Debabrata Reang (since dead) was returning back his

home, riding a bike bearing registration No.TR-03E-6595 (Pulsar)

through National Highway with a pillion rider, Sri Sukhari Reang,

Headmaster of school. The deceased was riding the bike at moderate

speed through National Highway and when they reached at Noraifung

Monaikha Para, that time a Truck bearing No.TR-02D-1840 was

negligently parked on NH-08, resulting which the deceased could not

keep control over the bike and dashed against the Truck. Both the

deceased and the pillion rider received severe bleeding injuries and was

shifted to Santirbazar District Hospital when the attending Medical

Officer declared Sri Debabrata Reang as dead and the pillion rider,

Sukhari Reang was referred to GBP Hospital. Later on, he also expired.

7. Before the Learned Tribunal below, the owner of the Truck

i.e. the respondent No.1 contested the case by filing written statement

and producing certain documents. Similarly, on behalf of the Insurance

Company, one Manoj Kumar Sharma appeared who was examined as

OPW-2.

8. To substantiate the case, certain issues were framed by the

Learned Tribunal below. On the basis of the issues framed and

evidence on record, Learned Tribunal below determined total amount of

compensation amounting to Rs.73,28,024/-. Thereafter, Learned

Tribunal below deducted 40% of the said amount towards contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased and awarded Rs.43,96,815/- in

favor of the present appellant-claimant petitioners.

9. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the

judgment and award delivered by Learned Tribunal below. I have also

perused the record of the Learned Tribunal below.

10. Admittedly, it was the case of the appellant-claimant

petitioners that on the alleged day of accident when the deceased

along with another was proceeding through the National Highway, at

that time, due to negligence of the driver of the offending Truck the

accident occurred. In addition to that, during recording evidence also,

PW-2 who was the eyewitness stated that the driver of the Truck all on

a sudden stopped the vehicle on the middle of the road and got down

from the vehicle for having tea at a nearby tea-stall when the deceased

came riding the motorbike and dashed against the Truck. The Police

investigation report also opined the same.

Now, if there is evidence on record that the accident

occurred due to wrong parking of the Truck, in that case there is no

scope to presume that there was contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased i.e. the rider of the bike. But, if there is evidence on

record that even if the driver of the Truck stopped the vehicle illegally

on the middle of the road and there was scope on the part of the

deceased to avoid the Truck and to escape the accident, however,

without doing so, he dashed directly against the Truck, then it can be

assumed that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider

of the motorbike i.e. the deceased.

11. Further, it is on record that at that time of accident the road

was almost dark due to foggy weather and there was no light at the

place where the accident took place. As such, it is natural that if the

Truck was stationed on the middle of the road by the driver, in that

case there was no scope on the part of the deceased to escape the

Truck and to save himself from the alleged accident. However, the

appellant-claimant petitioners ought to have adduced more specific

evidences in this regard to substantiate that there was no contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased at the time of the accident,

which they failed to do.

12. Again, even if it is assumed that there was negligence on

the part of the deceased at the time of accident, in that case also, it

was the duty of Learned Tribunal below to fasten the liability of

payment of compensation upon both the Insurance Companies as

because both the vehicles were duly insured. But, without doing the

same, Learned Tribunal below determined and fastened the liability of

payment of compensation upon the respondent-United Insurance

Company Ltd. Situated thus, it appears to this court that the judgment

and award delivered by Learned Tribunal below suffers from infirmity,

which needs to be interfered with.

13. Further, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Sushma vs.

Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC

2584, at para No.35 observed as under:

"35. The Courts below erred in concluding that it is a case of contributory negligence, because in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the accident or damage should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged."

From the aforesaid observation, it appears that to establish

contributory negligence there should be some act or omission on the

part of the victim/deceased which materially contributed to the

accident or damage. However, here in the case at hand, no such

evidence could be adduced by the contesting respondents for which

40% of compensation was deducted by the Learned Tribunal below.

14. So, considering the above facts and circumstances, it

appears to this Court that Learned Tribunal below committed error in

delivering the judgment and award. Thus, Learned Tribunal below shall

record the evidence afresh and shall decide the following issues in

addition to the issues framed earlier for determination of just

compensation of this case:

1. Whether the driver of the Truck stopped/parked the vehicle on the middle of the road?

2. Whether there was any scope on the part of the deceased to avoid the Truck while passing through the road on that relevant point of time to avoid contributory negligence?

3. Whether there was sufficient light at the alleged place of occurrence to ascertain that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased on the alleged date and time of accident?

Liberty shall be given by the Learned Tribunal below to both

the parties to adduce sufficient evidence on record to substantiate their

respective claims and counterclaims for just decision of the claim

petition.

After considering the fresh oral/documentary evidence on

record, the Learned Tribunal below shall deliver a fresh judgment

determining the compensation and shall also decide by whom the

payment of compensation is to be made.

15. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant

petitioners is hereby allowed. The judgment and award dated

20.09.2023 delivered by Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Court No. 5, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case