DISTRICT: DARRANG IN THE COURT OF THE MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRUBUNAL:: DARRANG::MANGALDAI (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Transcription

1 1 DISTRICT: DARRANG IN THE COURT OF THE MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRUBUNAL:: DARRANG::MANGALDAI (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) Name of Parties: Ref: MAC Case No. 1 of Smti. Damayanti Nath Claimant 1. Sri Tilak Thakuria, Owner of the offending vehicle No.AS-25-C/4874 (Motor Cycle) 2. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd., Mangaldai, Darrang, (Insurer of the vehicle No.AS-25-C/4874 (Motor Cycle) 3. The Branch Manager, United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd., Mangaldai, Darrang Opposite Parties Date of Argument : Date of Judgment & Order : Appearance: 1. For the Claimant : Smti. Bhichita Saharia, Advocate, -Versus- -AND- 1. For O.P.No.1 : Md. Omar Faruk Ahmed, Advocate 2. For O.P.No.2 & 3 : Md. A. Rajek. Advocate, Mangaldai PRESENT

2 2 Shri P.J. Saikia Member of Claim Tribunal Darrang,Mangaldai JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1. This claim petition is filed by the claimant Smti. Damayanti Nath U/S-166, R/W Sec.140(1) of MV Act praying for compensation for the death of Hare Krishna Nath, the husband of claimant as a result of Motor Vehicle accident. 2. The case of claimant in brief is that on , at about 4.30 PM, the deceased Hare Krishna Nath was coming from Tangla to Mangaldai by riding his motor cycle. On the way at Nizdala, a motor cycle bearing Regd. No. AS-25/C-4874 (Motor Cycle) driven in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down. As a result, the victim sustained fatal injuries and he fell down and became unconscious. Immediately he was taken to GNRC Hospital, Guwahati where he was declared dead by the doctor. The post-mortem of dead body was also done at GMCH, Guwahati. The deceased was the sole earning member of the family and by doing contract work, business and Congress Leadership he was running the family with dignity. 3. In this connection, police registered a case vide Kalaigaon P.S. GDE No.607 dated Opposite party-owner of the vehicle and insurance company contested the by filing their written statements. Opposite party No.1-owener of the vehicle No.AS-25- C/4874 (Motor Cycle) in his written statement contended that claim

3 3 is not maintainable, there is no cause of action. Further, this opposite party has categorically denied the averment of the petition. It is contended that vehicle No.AS-25/C-4874 (Motor Cycle) was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., Mangaldai Branch under the valid policy being insurance policy No /31/07/01/ dated covering all risk and liabilities of any accident involving the said vehicle and arising out of use all thereof. As the same was being plied during the material point of time of the accident, complying with all the terms and conditions of the said policy. Hence, insurance company is liable to pay any compensation, if arises out of the said accident. 3. Opposite party No.2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in the written statement has categorically denied the allegation of their liability for the said accident. It is contended that the claim is not maintainable, there is no cause of action, it is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and being a pillion rider the claimant is not entitle to any relief under the provision of M.V. Act.. It is stated that at the relevant point of time, the alleged vehicle had not been plying by complying with traffic rules and provisions of MV Act. They have violated the policy conditions and as such this opposite party is not liable to pay any sum by way of compensation. Further, the owner of the vehicle also did not inform about the accident to opposite party.

4 4 4. Upon the premises of the pleadings, the following four issues have been settled: i) Whether the deceased died out of the alleged accident and due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No.AS-25/C-4874? ii) Whether the vehicle was covered by Insurance Policy at the time of accident? iii) To what relief/reliefs, if any, parties are entitled to? 5. Complainant side examined two witnesses, opposite party also cross-examined all the witnesses. Claimant exhibited certain documents. Opposite party examined only one witness.i have heard argument from both sides of learned counsels and perused the case record. Decision of Issue No.1 & 2 6. In support of the oral evidence the claimant has proved the post mortem examination report as the Ext 2, the income certificate as the Ext 3. But his witness Tarun Mahanta is eye witness to the accident. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the insurer or the other opposite party. From the oral evidence of the claimant and his witness, coupled with the documentary evidence filed by the claimant, there is no doubt that the husband of the claimant died because of injuries caused to her because of rash and negligent act of the offending vehicle.

5 5 Here in this case the deceased was a pillion rider of a motor cycle. The witness examined by the insurance company deposed evidence to prove that pillion riding was not covered in the insurance policy. In United India Insurance Co Ltd v Chandana Shaha reported in 2006(2) GLJ 406, the Honble High Court has held that the pillion rider is covered any the expression any person appearing in section 149 of the M.V.Act. Thus the evidence of the DW is rejected. These two issues are answered in affirmative. ISSUE NO.3 7. The deceased was 45 years old at the time of death. He was reportedly earning Rs.!2,000/- per month.a certificate pertaining to his income has been filed. He was a contractor. So the income certificate does not have any value. Even then the income of the deceased is held to be Rs.10,000/- per month. No age certificate has been filed. The annual income of the deceased is held to be Rs.1,20,000/-. By applying multiplier of 13 (age being years) as prescribed in Sarla Verma -Vs- Delhi Road Transport Corporation,[ reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121] and after deducting one-third on account of personal expenses of the deceased out of the said annual income, comes to Rs 80,000/-. Claimant certainly incurred some amount for funeral etc, and as such, besides loss of dependency, claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs 20,000/- on account of funeral expenses. Thus,

6 6 the total compensation to which the claimant is entitled to is assessed as under:- Loss of dependency Rs 80,000 X 13 :: Rs.10,40, Funeral expenses : Rs. 20, Loss of consortium : Rs. 10, Total : Rs. 10,70, A W A R D 10. Rs 10,70,000/- ( ten lakhs seventy thousand ) is awarded with 6% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e , till payment. The opposite party insurance company is directed to pay the award within one month from the date of order. May, Given under my hand & seal of this Court on this 16th day of (P.J. Saikia) Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Darrang, Mangaldai, Assam. Certified that the judgment is typed to my dictation and corrected by me and each page bears my signature. (P.J. Saikia)) Member,MACT Darrang,Mangaldai

7 7