[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Sumitra Debbarma on 23 March, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP 1 OF 2026
The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company
Limited, Akhaura Road, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura
(Insurer of the AS-11-BC-3071, Truck)
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Sumitra Debbarma, wife of Sri Bidhu Debbarma,
resident of Kalyanpur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai,
Tripura.
2. Sri Bidhu Debbarma, son of late Sudhanya Debbarma,
resident of Kalyanpur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai,
Tripura.
3. Smt. Animika Debbarma, daughter of Sri Bidhu Debbarma,
resident of Kalyanpur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai,
Tripura.
4. Smt. Swapna Debbarma, daughter of Sri Bidhu Debbarma,
resident of Kalyanpur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai,
Tripura.
5. Smt. Hasina Debbarma, daughter of Sri Bidhu Debbarma,
resident of Kalyanpur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai,
Tripura.
---- Claimant-Respondents
6. Sri Ajit Das, son of late Promode Ranjan Das, resident of
Longai Road, Karimganj, P.S. Karimganj, District- Karimganj,
Assam (owner of AS-11-BC-3071, Truck).
7.
---- Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. PS Roy, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery : 23.03.2026
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant- Insurance
Company challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
Page 2
21.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court
No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. T.S. (MAC) 217 of 2021.
2. Heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. PS Roy, learned
counsel for the claimant-respondents.
3. The facts of the case, in short is that, on 24.04.2021
the deceased, Tinamoy Debbarma, was proceeding towards
Kalyanpur from Teliamura by riding a Motor Bike and when he
reached in front of Kalyanpur Forest Office at Kalyanpur at that
time one Truck bearing registration No.AS11BC-3071 came from
Kalyanpur Bazar in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the
deceased from his back side with his motor bike, as a result of
which the deceased sustained fatal injury on his person.
Immediately after the accident he was taken to Kalyanpur Hospital
wherefrom he was referred to AGMC and GBP Hospital, Agartala
for his treatment, and in course of his treatment, said Tinamoy
Debbarma succumbed to his injuries. For the said fatal accident,
the claimant-respondents 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 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.
Page 3
Following the settled principles of law, the learned
Tribunal has quantified the compensation to the tune of Rs.
20,44,000/- along with interest @8% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application till the date of its realization
mentioning therein the proportionate share.
Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said
judgment and award dated 21.06.2025 passed by the learned
Tribunal in T.S. (MAC) 217 of 2021, the insurance company has
preferred this appeal with the following reliefs:
"a)Admit the appeal and call for records;
b) Pass order setting aside the award dated 21st day of June, 2025 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala
in Motor Accident case no. T.S. (MAC) 217 of 2021;
c) Pass order staying the operation of the award dated 21st day of June,
2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West
Tripura, Agartala in Motor Accident case no. T.S. (MAC) 217 of 2021 ;
d) Pass any other order or orders as deem fit and proper having regard to
the facts & circumstances of the case."
4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
insurance company has argued in two folds, namely, (i) the person
driving the motor bike i.e. the deceased, was not having driving
license, and (ii) no vehicular documents relating to the motorcycle
were placed before the trial court and the same were not
exhibited. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted
that since on the alleged date and time, the deceased was not
having valid driving license, the claimants are not entitled to get
any compensation. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
driver of the truck vehicle also was not having valid license on the
alleged date and time of the accident. Learned counsel has further
submitted that the insurer of the motorcycle was not impleaded as
party to the suit. Learned counsel has further submitted that
Page 4
violating all the statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the
deceased was driving his motorcycle and that too the accident
occurred due to fault of the deceased. In fine, learned counsel has
urged this court to quash the impugned judgment and award
passed by the learned Tribunal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant-
respondents has urged this court to maintain with the judgment
and award so passed by the trial court. Learned counsel has
further submitted that all the documents were furnished and
placed on record before the trial court and after careful
examination, the trial court has passed the judgment and award
by computing the compensation under issue nos. (iii) and (iv).
6. I have perused the entire record including the award
passed by the learned Tribunal.
7. On scrutiny of the record, it is evident that the
deceased was driving the alleged motorcycle, but the driving
license of the deceased and vehicular documents of the alleged
motorcycle were not seized or placed on record by the claimant-
respondents nor the same were marked as exhibit. The trial court
has opined nothing on to this regard while passing the judgment
and award. Moroever, PW-1 in her cross-examination has
specifically stated that no driving license of her son (deceased)
was produced before the court. Since learned counsel for the
claimant-respondents made specific assertion that all documents
were placed on record, this court considering the Motor Vehicles
Page 5
Act as beneficial legislation and not to deprive the claimants of
their legitimate right, and the matter on this point alone requires
re-consideration.
8. On the second point that this court is not inclined to
accept argument of the Insurance Company that the driver of the
offending vehicle was having driving license, but the same was not
Transport/Commercial license. This argument is denied since the
driver of the offending vehicle was having a license and it is well
settled by a catena of decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court that category of license cannot be a ground for denying the
payment of compensation and it is not open for the Insurance
Company to take such defense. Thus, only to examine on the point
no. (i) with regard to the driving license and vehicular papers, the
matter needs to be remanded.
7. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and
award dated 21.06.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in T.S.
(MAC) 217 of 2021, 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 at liberty to adduce their evidences in their favour, both
documentary and oral.
8. With the above observations and directions, the appeal
stands disposed of. As a sequel, pending application(s), if any,
also stands disposed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR KAR
Date: 2026.03.26 14:56:31
-04'00'
