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

Transcription

1 DISTRICT: DARRANG IN THE COURT OF THE MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL::DARRANG::MANGALDAI (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) Ref: MAC Case No.70 of 2011 Name of Parties: 1. Mustt. Manowara Begum Claimant. -Versus- 1. Md. Iftiar Ali, Owner of the offending vehicle No.AS- 01/AG Sri Dipak Ch. Das, driver of the offending vehicle No. AS- 01/AG United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Mangaldai Branch, Darrang Opposite Parties Date of Argument : Date of Judgment & Order : Appearance: 1. For the Claimant : Md. I. Ali Ibrahim. Sarma, Advocate, Mangaldai. -AND- 1. For O.P.No.1 and 2 : Self 2. For O.P. No.3 : Mr. S. Deka, Advocate, Mangaldai. PRESENT (Shri P.J. Saikia) Member of Claims Tribunal Darrang, Mangaldai JUDGMENT AND ORDER

2 2 1. This claim petition is filed by the claimant Mrs. Manowara Begum U/S-166 of MV Act, 1988, R/W Sec. 140 of the said Act as amended upto date claiming compensation of Rs.10,00, on account of death of the husband of the claimant as a result of motor accident. 2. The case of claimants, in brief, is that on at about PM, while the husband of the claimant Nazimudin Ahmed was waiting for vehicle to go to his residence at Gog Chowk after visiting his relative s house, the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.AS-01/AG-4786 (Tata Indica) coming from Guwhati side towards Mangaldai on a very high speed and driving in a rash and negligent manner, lost its control and knocked down the husband of the claimant at Gog Chowk on NH 52 under Baihata Chariali P.S. As a result, the husband of the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his head and body portion. Immediately he was taken to GMCH. But he was succumbed to his injuries at GMCH on His post mortem examination was also performed there. In this connection, police also registered a case after receipt of ejahar bearing Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No.6810, U/S- 279/304(A) IPC. Hence, claimants have filed this claim petition before this Tribunal. 3. Opposite party No.1and 2-owner and driver of the vehicle contested the case by filing joint written statement. It is

3 3 contended that the claim petition is not maintainable; it is bad for want of proper and valid notice and denied each and every allegation brought against them. It is further stated by these opposite parties that the offending vehicle was duly insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Mangaldai Branch covering all risks and liabilities bearing insurance policy No /31/09/01/ which is valid from to the midnight of and as such the said insurance company is liable to pay any compensation if arises. 4. Opposite party No.3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the case by filing written statement. It is contended in the written statement that there is no cause of action. The claim petition is not maintainable; it is barred by law of limitation and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also stated that the driver had no valid license and there was no valid permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle. This opposite party denied each and every allegation made by the claimant. 5. Upon the premises of pleadings, the following issues have been framed: i) Whether the victim Nazimuddin Ahmed succumbed to his injuries as a result of the alleged accident road accident dated involving the vehicle being Reg. No.As-01/AG-4786 and whether

4 4 the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? ii) Whether the offending vehicle was covered by insurance policy at the time of the accident? iii) To what relief/reliefs, if any, parties are entitled? 6. Claimants side examined only one witness. Opposite party cross-examined this witness. Opposite party-insurance Company has not examined any witnesses. I have heard argument from both sides of learned counsels and perused the Case Record. Decision of Issue No In support of the oral evidence the claimant has proved the post mortem examination report as the Ext 2. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the insurer or the other opposite party. From the oral evidence of the claimant and her 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 him because of rash and negligent act of the offending vehicle. Thus these two issues are decided in affirmative. ISSUE NO 2

5 5 8. That the offending vehicle was insured with the opposite party insurance company is not in dispute. Hence this issue is decided in favour of the claimant. ISSUE NO 4 9. In view of the discussion and decision of the foregoing issues, the claimant is certainly entitled to compensation. The deceased was a businessman. He purchased rice and betel nut and again sold it. No document has been filed to prove the income of the deceased. Hence her notional income is taken as Rs.3000/- per month. The deceased was thirty three years old and has left behind his wife. About other dependents the claimant has not clearly spoken. No age proof certificate has been produced. Therefore I shall hold the deceased within the age bracket of With the above income and applying multiplier of 15 (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, the amount comes to Rs 3,60,000/-. The claimant also might have incurred some amount for funeral etc. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in Rajesh & ors v Rajbir Singh & ors [ 2013 AIAR (civil) 662] has directed that when the deceased leaves behind spouse, the consortium amount should be at least Rs.1,00,000/-.The Hon,ble Apex Court further held that for funeral expenses at least an amount of Rs.25,000/- should be given. Thus, the

6 6 total compensation to which the claimant is entitled is assessed as under:- Loss of dependency 24,000 X 15 Loss of consortium : Rs.3,60, : Rs.1,00, Funeral expenses : Rs. 25, Total : Rs.4,85, A W A R D 10. Rs 4,85,000/- (five lakhs eighty five 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. Given under my hand and seal of this court today this 20 th day of September, 2013 at Mangaldai Court. 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 (P.J. Saikia) Member,MACT Darrang,Mangaldai

7 7