IN THE COURT OF MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, NAGAON (ASSAM) M.A.C. Case No.170/09

Transcription

1 IN THE COURT OF MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, NAGAON (ASSAM) M.A.C. Case No.170/09 Md. Ramjan Ali : Claimant. -Vs- (1) Sri Karuna Mahanta (2) Sri Thomas Marsdi (3) Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., and (4) National Ins. Co. Ltd., : Opp. Parties. Advocate for the claimant : Mr.P.Bezbaruah Advocate for the National Ins. Co. : Mr.D.M.Bordoloi Advocate for the Oriental Ins. Co. : Mr.G.Bhattacharjee. Date of evidence : , Date of argument : , & Date of judgment : J U D G M E N T The present claim case has arisen out of a claim petition filed U/S 166 of the M.V.Act by one Md. Ramjan Ali for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The case of the claimant in a nut shell is that on the fateful day of accident i.e., on at about 6 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration no. AS-02/C-2202 from his house at Anjukpani to Sunajari and when he reached at Langkhan suddenly another vehicle bearing registration no.as-12/e-0199 (truck) which was coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked the motor cycle. Thee

2 was head on collision on between the two vehicles and as the result of the accident the claimant sustained grievous injuries and immediately after the accident the claimant obtained first aid treatment at Simonabasti PHC and thereafter treated by private doctors. The O.P. No.1, owner of the vehicle bearing no. AS-12/E-0199 (truck) contested the case by filing written statement contending inter-alia that the claim petition is not maintainable and that there is no cause of action. The O.P. also denied the age, income, occupation of the injured as alleged in the claim petition. The owner of the vehicle has stated that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., and that he had valid driving licence vide D/L No which was issued by DTO Sonitpur and in case any liability is fixed upon the owner then he should be indemnified by the above named insurer. On receipt of the notice from the tribunal, the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., the insurer of vehicle no.as-12/e-0199 (truck) contested the case by filing written statement contending, inter-alia, that the claim petition is not maintainable; that the claim petition is barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence; that the claim petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party. It is submitted that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident and hence the company is not liable to indemnify the owner. The insurance company denied the age, income, occupation of the injured as alleged in the claim petition. The National. Co. Ltd., the insurer of vehicle no. AS-02/C-2202 contested the case by filing W/S denying the whole fact of accident as alleged and also denied receipt of any injury by the claimant. Rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of vehicle no.as-02/c-2202 is also denied. The insurance company denied the age, income, occupation of the injured as alleged in the claim petition. It is submitted that the driver of the vehicle had no authorised valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident and hence the company is not liable to indemnify the owner. None has appeared on behalf of the owner of the vehicle no. AS-02/C-2202 to contest the case hence, the case proceeded ex-parte against the owner of the vehicles. The following issues are framed for decision:- 1. Is there any cause of action for filing the claim petition?

3 2. Whether claim petition is maintainable? 3. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of vehicle nos.as-02/c-2202 and AS-12/E-0199 (truck)? 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation and if so to what extent and who is liable to pay the same? 5. To what relief/reliefs are the parties entitled? DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF Issue No 1 & 2 The claimants have filed this claim U/S 166 of the M.V.Act. The evidence of the claimant is that the incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle no. AS-12/E-0199 (truck) and that as a result of the accident he sustained injuries. In the claim petition he has impleaded the owners and also the insurers of the offending vehicle no.as-12/e-0199 (truck) which was involved in the accident. The driver of the vehicles should have been impleaded but failure to implead the drivers would not affect the claim case. The insurer and owner of vehicle bearing no. AS-02/C was also impleaded as the said vehicle was also involved in the accident. There is nothing in the record to show why the claim petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is decided that claim petition is maintainable and there is cause of action for filing the claim petition. These issues are decided accordingly in favour of the claimant. Issue No.3 The claimant adduced his evidence in support of his claim petition as P.W.1. He disclosed during his testimony that on the fateful day of accident i.e., on at about 6 a.m., while he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration no. AS- 02/C-2202 from his house at Anjukpani to Sunajari and when he reached at Langkhan suddenly another vehicle bearing registration no.as-12/e-0199 (truck) which was coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked the motor cycle. He disclosed that as the result of the accident he sustained grievous injuries and immediately after the accident he was treated at Simonabasti PHC, B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon G.D. Nursing Home, Nagaon and also by private doctors. He alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no.as- 12/E-0199 (truck).

4 During cross-examination he disclosed that the motor cycle in which he was travelling was on the left side of the road and the truck vehicle which was coming from the back side in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle. The learned advocate for the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., pointing out to the pleading of the claim petition submitted that admittedly there is head on collision between the vehicle bearing no.as-02/c-2202 and AS-12/E-0199 (truck) and as such the Tribunal should hold that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of both the vehicles. Per contra the learned advocate for National Ins. Co. Ltd., submitted that the evidence of the claimant makes it clear that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the motor cycle. It is submitted that the claimant testified that he was plying the bike on the extreme left side of the road and the vehicle bearing no. AS-12/E-0199 (truck) hit his motor bike by coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. The fact of head on collision itself does not mean that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of motor cycle. From the evidence of the claimant it appears that he was driving the motor cycle on the extreme left side of the road and the truck vehicle hit his motor cycle by coming from the opposite direction. The said evidence of the claimant could not be dislodged by the insurer of the truck vehicle. The owner of the truck also did not challenge the evidence of claimant in this regard. Accident information report shows that Samaguri P.S. G.D.Entry No. 240 dated was registered by Samaguri P.S., regarding the accident caused by the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-12/E-0199 (truck) and Ramjan Ali was shown as the ill fated person who sustained injuries due to the accident. The evidence of the claimant and accident information report proved the fact that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver of the vehicle. Medical documents shows that claimant sustained injuries in the accident. Accordingly this issue is decided holding that the cause of accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle bearing registration no. AS-12/E-0199 (truck). Issue No.4 & 5

5 Ext. 2 advice slip of Simonabasti PHC dated Ext.3 and 4 the X-ray report dated shows suspected fracture in upper end of right radius, fracture in 4 th and 5 th ribs of right chest wall. Ext.4 and 4(1) are the prescription of G.D. Nursing Home and Research Centre, Nagaon dated shows injury at right forearm and chest wall following alleged history of RTA and doctor advised PA view of chest and AP lateral view of right forearm. Ext.5 to 7(1) are prescriptions. Claimant submitted two X-ray reports Ext.3 and 4 dated to show that suspected fracture in upper end of right radius, fracture in 4 th and 5 th ribs of right chest wall. But no X-ray plate has been submitted to substantiate the fact that actually he received fracture injury. In the subsequent document of G.D. Nursing Home, Nagaon dated and regarding treatment of the claimant also nowhere mentioned about the fracture of right forearm and rib. If the claimant actually would have received such fracture injury then certainly the said fact were noted in the subsequent prescription Ext.4 and 5. So from the medical documents Ext.4 it can be held that the claimant suffered from simple injury in the right forearm and chest wall. The prescription Ext.4(1) to 5 and 6(1) to 7(1) cannot be treated as prescription of RTA related injury as nothing is mentioned for what reason the patient was examined by the doctor. Nothing mentioned in those documents that medicines were prescribed due to any complain relating to the injury sustained in the accident. Since the claimant sustained injuries in the motor vehicular accident due to fault of the drivers of the offending vehicle No. AS-12/E-0199 (truck) hence, he is entitled to receive compensation. Now, it is to be determined what would be the just and proper compensation and who is liable to pay the compensation. I have carefully perused the prescriptions and other cash memos. On perusal of the prescription Ext.4(1) to 5 and 6(1) to 7(1) it appears that nothing is mentioned for what reason the patient was examined by the doctor. So relating to prescription Ext.Ext.4(1) to 5 and 6(1) to 7(1) cash memos Ext.8(1) to 8(3) and 8(5) to Ext.8(26) cannot be accepted. From the remaining cash memos it appears that claimant has expended an amount of Rs.2,438/- for his treatment. So she is entitled for this amount as pecuniary damages.

6 The claimant testified that he earned monthly Rs.5,000/- by doing business. However, no certificate regarding his income could be submitted by him. As an able bodied man the injured definitely would have earned an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. For causing such injury he would have definitely unable to perform his work for 1 months. So, he is entitled to Rs.3,000/- as loss of income. For pain and suffering for causing injury at forearm and chest an amount of Rs.7,000/- is added. Thus the total amount of compensation the claimant is entitled is to Rs.12,438/-. Now the question is who is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. It is already discussed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing no.as-12/e-0199 (truck). Though the insurance side took the plea that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence yet the insurance side could not prove the said fact. The accident information report on the other hand shows the fact that driver had the licence bearing no /S/T which was issued by DTO Sonitpur. Above facts shows that the offending vehicle was driven by a driver having valid licence and owner as such has not violated the condition of the insurance policy. As per the claim petition and accident information report the vehicle bearing no.as-12/e-0199 (truck) is insured with Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., vide policy no which is valid upto Accident happened on Hence, the Oriental Ins. Co Ltd., is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. AWARD AND ORDER Therefore, it is ordered that the Oriental Ins. Co Ltd., be directed to make payment of Rs.12,438/- only to claimant with 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.1,000/- each as cost of this proceeding. Copy of judgment and order be communicated to the O.P. The judgment is pronounced and delivered in the open court under my hand and seal of this court on this the 20 th day of May/2015. Dictated & corrected by me:- Member, M.A.C.T., Nagaon. Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nagaon(Assam).

7 A P P E N D I X Claimant examined 1) Md. Ramjan Ali Opp.Party examined Nil Claimant exhibited 1) Ext.1 & 2 : Accident Information Reports. 2) Ext.3 & 7(1) : Medical documents. 3) Ext.8(1) to 8(26): Cash memos. Opp.party exhibited Nil. Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nagaon(Assam)