IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL SONITPUR, TEZPUR. MAC Case No. 93 of 2010

Transcription

1 IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL SONITPUR, TEZPUR. MAC Case No. 93 of 2010 Sri Raja Paul S/o Sri Bimal Paul Lamabari, PO and PS Mazbhat, District: Udalguri Assam. Claimant (1) Mr Aju Cheje S/o Tadik Cheje C/o Sri Raja Paul S/o Sri Bimal Paul Lamabari, PS Mazbhat, District: Udalguri -VS- (2) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Tezpur Branch Tezpur....Opp Parties Date of Argument : Date of Judgment : ADVOCATES FOR THE PARTIES For the Claimant : Sri S. Khan For the OP No. 1 : For the OP No. 2 : Sri Mahendra Bora PRESENT MS. A. AJITSARIA, AJS, MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL /ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.2, SONITPUR, TEZPUR. J U D G M E N T The instant claim petition has been filed by the claimant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor Page 1 of 5

2 cycle accident. The case of the claimant as narrated in the claim petition, in brief, is that on , when the claimant was returning from Dolabari and proceeding towards Garuanpatty by driving the motor cycle No. AR 01 B/6951, the said motorcycle capsized when the claimant tried to save himself from a truck. Claimant has stated that he sustained injuries for which he was treated at Kanaklata Civil Hospital and thereafter at GMCH, Guwahati. The Opposite party No.1, owner of the motor cycle, filed written statement denying the material averments and contending that since the motor cycle was duly insured with OP No.2 vide Policy No /31/08/02/ valid from to , the OP No.2 is liable to indemnify the owner in the event of any compensation being awarded by this Tribunal. The O.P No. 2, Insurance Company, in its written statement denied all material averments of the claim petition and pleaded, inter-alia, that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exaggerated and speculative. That the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation until and unless it is proved that the driver/rider of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence and the conditions of Insurance Policy, if there be any, were not violated by the insured. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication:- 1 Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation as prayed for? During enquiry, the claimant No.1 examined himself and he was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the Insurance Co. I have carefully perused the entire materials brought on record, heard submissions made by the learned counsels for the Page 2 of 5

3 parties. Both the issues are taken up together for the sake of brevity. The claimant No.1 in his evidence on affidavit, reiterated the factual details of the accident as narrated herein before and further stated the details of injuries suffered by him on his head and jaws for which he claimed to have spent an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh. The claimant has claimed Rs 9 Lakh as compensation. In support of his oral evidence, CW 1 has proved the Accident Information Report as Ext-1, Medical documents from Ext 2 to Ext 6 and Insurance Policy Ext 7. From Ext 1, the accident information report shows that Motor cycle No. AR-01-B-6951 was involved in an accident in which the claimant sustained injuries. The claimant s name has been recorded as the driver/rider of the said motor cycle. GDE No. 858 dated It has also been recorded therein that the said motor cycle was insured with New India Assurance Co Ltd vide Policy No /31/08/02/ It has been further recorded that the occurrence was purely accidental. Ext 7 is the Insurance Policy of the Motor Cycle which shows that it is a Liability Only /Act Policy, with the owner paying Rs.337/- towards premium for third party insurance. The medical documents show that the claimant suffered from head injuries and injuries to his teeth, for which he was given conservative treatment. Cash Memos amounting to approximately Rs.3500/- has been submitted by the claimant. Opposite party No.2 led the evidence of Sri Bibubhuti Bhushan Chandra, Administrative Officer, New India Insurance Co, Tezpur. DW 1 exhibited the Insurance Policy and stated that Policy No /31/08/02/ valid from to in respect of the motor cycle No. AS 01 B 6951 was a Act /Liability only Policy, which means that only third party injury and third party Page 3 of 5

4 property damage within limitation is covered by the said policy. DW 1 further stated that owner driver is not covered in such policies as no extra premium has been paid for coverage of owner or rider of the motor cycle. DW 1 also exhibited copy of the GDE No. 863 dated of Tezpur PS. Relying on the evidence of DW 1, Ld Counsel for the Insurance Co. submits that the claimant is not liable to be indemnified by the OP NO.2 in the instant case. Moreover, submits the Ld Counsel for the OP. No.2 in view of the factual narration of the accident as reflected in the GDE No.863, the instant case is liable to be dismissed. I have perused the GDE No. 863 dated wherein it has been recorded inter alia, that ASI, M Bormudoi appeared in the police station and informed that, at 10 PM Motor cycle No. AR 01 J6951 was being driven by two boys and when they were proceeding towards Garanpatty, an unknown maruti van knocked the motor cycle because of which the above two motor cycles hit the cycle and the motor cyclist and the pillion riders sustained injuries and the maruti fled. The injured were immediately shifted to Kanaklata Civil Hospital, the motor cycle brought to the police station. The names of the injured were (i) Anil Guha and (ii) Raja Paul (iii) Sanjoy Dey (iv) Hussain Islam. In the alternative, submits the Ld Counsel for the Insurance Co, even if the version of the claimant is to be believed, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed, in as much as, the accident occurred because of the own fault of the claimant himself. Considering the case in its entirety, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the instant petition is to be dismissed on the following counts: (i) The claimant has failed to prove that the accident occurred in the manner narrated by him in the claim petition, in as much as, the GDE portrays a different story all together. Page 4 of 5

5 (ii) Unknown maruti van having caused the accident, the claimant is not entitled to be indemnified by the Insurance, OP No.2 as the Policy of the Motor Cycle AS 01 B 6951 is an Act Policy only. (iii) Even if the version of the claimant is to be believed, the owner of the motor cycle is not liable to reimburse the claimant for the expences incurred for treatment of the injuries suffered by the claimant, when the accident was caused by the claimant himself while riding the motor cycle. Hence in view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is held that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. The instant claim petition is accordingly dismissed. June, Given under my hand & seal of this Court on this 2 nd day of Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge No.2 Sonitpur, Tezpur Page 5 of 5