IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: LAKHIMPUR : AT NORTH LAKHIMPUR

Transcription

1 1 MACT Case No.24/2012. IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: LAKHIMPUR : AT NORTH LAKHIMPUR M.A.C.T CASE No.24/2012. P A R T I E S 1. Smti Rimpi Goswami. 2. Smti Rina Devi. 3. Miss Sanskriti Bharadwaj. (Claimant No.3, who is minor is represented by her mother, Claimant No.1). Claimants. -Versus- 1. Smti Sabita Devi Rai. ( Owner of vehicle bearing registration No.AS.01/F-6981, Truck). 2. Sri Juel Khakha. ( Driver of vehicle bearing registration No.AS.01/F-6981, Truck). 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. North Lakhimpur. 4. Sri Pabitra Goswami. (Owner of bus bearing registration No.AS.03.E/ 6285). 5. Sri Monjit Borah. ( Driver of bus bearing registration No.AS.03.E/ 6285). 6. United India Insurance Company Ltd. North Lakhimpur. Opposite Parties. Present : Md. Imtiaz Ali, Member, M.A.C.T. Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. A P P E A R A N C E Mr. Bidarbha Rajkhowa, the learned advocate for the Claimants. Mr. Gopalji Sahu, the learned advocate for the Opposite Party No.1. Mr. Rajib Gogoi, the learned advocate for the Opposite Party No.3 & 6. Date of argument : Date of Judgment :

2 2 MACT Case No.24/2012. J U D G M E N T 1. This claim case has been instituted by Claimant No.1, Smti Rimpi Goswami w/o Lt. Gakul Sarmah, Claimant No.2, Smti Rina Devi w/o Lt. Dibakar Sarmah, and Claimant No.3, Miss Sanskriti Bharadwaj, the minor d/o Lt. Gakul Sarmah, being represented by her mother, Claimant No.1, against OP No.1, Smti Sabita Devi Rai, the owner of the truck bearing registration No.AS.01.F/6981, OP No.2, Sri Juel Khakha, the driver of the said truck, OP No.3, United India Insurance Company Ltd. the insurer of the said truck, OP No.4, Sri Pabitra Goswami, the owner of bus bearing registration No.AS.03.E/ 6285, OP No.5, Sri Monjit Baruah, the driver of the said bus, and OP No.6, United India Insurance Company Ltd. the insurer of the bus in question, seeking compensation amounting to Rs.23,20,000/- only for the death of Lt. Gakul Sarmah, the husband of claimant No.1/ the son of claimant No.2 / father of claimant No.3, due to road traffic accident on at about 1 Pm on NH-52 near Aai Than, Banderdewa. 2. The claimants case in brief is that on at about 1 Pm while the deceased, Gakul Sarmah was travelling by bus bearing registration No.AS.03.E/ 6285 from Narayanpur Jarabari towards North Lakhimpur town, and then it reached near hilly road at Banderdewa, suddenly the truck bearing registration No.AS.01.F/ 6981 came from opposite direction i.e., from the up side of hill in reverse direction and dashed against the bus, as a result, the deceased, who was sitting in front side seat of the bus sustained grievous injury on his person. The deceased was immediately shifted to Naharlagun General Hospital, but on the way to hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. The matter was informed to Bihpuria PS, and police of Bihpuria PS registered a case vide Bihpuria PS Case No.24/2012 u/s 279/ 304(A) IPC. Accordingly, the claimants filed this case seeking an amount of Rs.23,20,000/- only for death of Gakul Sarmah due to road traffic accident on at Banderdewa.

3 3 MACT Case No.24/ On receipt of the notice, the OP No.1, the owner of the truck bearing registration No.AS.01.F/ 6981 had appeared and filed her Written Statement. It is contended in the WS that the truck involved in the accident was driven by an experienced driver and he was having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, and the truck was also duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. which is in force w.e.f to It is also contended that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.AS.03.E/ It is also contended that the claim of the claimant is too high and excessive, and accordingly the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case against her. 4. On receipt of the notice, the OP No.3, United India Insurance Company Ltd. being the insurer of the truck in question bearing registration No.AS.01./F-6981 and the OP No.6, United India Insurance Company Ltd. being the insurer of the bus bearing registration No.AS.03.E/6285 appeared and contested the case both in facts and law points by filing their Written Statement. It is contended in the W.S. that the Insurance Company does not admit the income, age and health condition of the deceased at the time of accident. It is further contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant unless and until it is proved that the person at the wheel was having valid and effective Driving License to drive such vehicle and the vehicle was roadworthy to ply and having valid Fitness certificate, RC etc. Accordingly, the insurance company prays for exempting them from paying compensation. 5. On receipt of notice, OP No.2, the driver of the truck, OP No.4, the owner of the bus and OP No.5, the driver of the bus have not turned up, for which the case was proceeded exparte against them. 6. Now, upon the premises of the pleadings, the following issues have been framed to determine the real controversies between the parties :

4 4 MACT Case No.24/ Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AS.01.F/6981 (truck) causing death to Gakul Sarmah? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation as prayed for? 3. What other relief/ reliefs the parties are entitled to? DISCUSSION, DECISION & REASONS THEREOF ON ISSUE NO.1 : 7. In support of the claim case, the CW.1, Smti Rimpi Goswami has examined herself and another witness, namely Sri Anil Bora as CW.2. The CW.1 in her affidavit evidence, stated that on while her husband, Gakul Sarmah was travelling from Narayanpur towards North Lakhimpur by bus bearing registration No.AS.03.E/ 6285 and when he reached Banderdewa hill side, another vehicle (truck) bearing registration No.AS.01.F/6981 came backward through the middle of the road and dashed in the front side of the bus, which was driven in rash and negligent manner, and as a result, her husband, who was sitting near the door side seat, fell down from the bus and he was run over by the truck, and thereafter immediately the deceased was taken to Ramkrishna Hospital, Itanagar, but on the way to hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. During cross examination by the OP No.1, she stated that she does not know under what circumstances the accident took place. During cross examination by the OP No.3, Insurance Company, she stated that the bus involved in the accident lost control and dashed on the back side of the truck. CW.2, Sri Anil Bora, in his affidavit evidence, stated that on , he was travelling from Narayanpur towards North Lakhimpur by the bus bearing registration No.AS.03/E-6285 along with Gakul Sarmah, who was the brother of his colleague, and when they reached near Banderdewa Aai Than, their bus dashed against a loaded truck on its back side, which was coming backward on the road negligently, for which Gakul Sarmah, who was sitting on the door side seat of the bus, fell down from the bus and he was run over by the truck, and thereafter he along with nearby persons informed police

5 5 MACT Case No.24/2012. and took Gakul Sarmah to Itanagar for his treatment, but on the way, Gakul Sarmah succumbed to his injuries. He also deposed that he had seen the accident with his own eyes, and to him due to rash and negligent driving of the truck, the accident took place. During cross examination by the Insurance Company, CW.2 denied that the deceased died in the accident as he jumped from the bus. 8. In this instant case, the OP, Insurance company did not adduce any evidence in support of their written statement. Now, from the evidence of the CW.2, Sri Anil Bora, it appears that at the time of occurrence, he was the co-passenger of the bus involved in the accident and he saw the occurrence with his own eyes. The said witness has categorically stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck involved in the accident. Although, the Insurance Company suggested the fact that due to fault of the deceased, the accident took place but to that effect they did not adduce any evidence to substantiate their plea. They have not examined any witness in support of their W.S. After going through the entire legal evidence on record, it appears that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS.01.F/ 6981 (truck) causing death of Gakul Sarmah. This issue has been answered accordingly. DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF ON ISSUE NOS.2 AND 3 : 9. For the sake of convenience both the issues have been taken up together for decision as they are related to each other. The CW.1 had exhibited certain documents including Accident Information Report as Ext.1, Post Mortem Report as Ext.2, Certificate regarding income of the deceased issued by the Dist. Agricultural Officer, Lakhimpur, and some education certificates of the deceased. Now, from the Accident Information Report, Ext.1, it appears that with respect to the accident, a police case was registered as Bihpuria PS Case No.24/2012 u/s 279/ 304(A) IPC, and the driver of the truck involved in the accident, had valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, and the truck involved in the accident had valid Insurance policy issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vide

6 6 MACT Case No.24/2012. Policy No / 31/ 10/ 01/ which was valid up to covering the date of accident. Now, from the Post Mortem Report, Ext.2, it appears that at the time of accident, the deceased was attaining 32 years. So, in such a case, multiplier would be Now, as per Ext.3, Income certificate issued by the District Agricultural Officer, Lakhimpur, the deceased was a progressive farmer having 17 bighas of cultivable land where miscellaneous crops were grown and his annual income was approximately Rs.2 Lakhs. But, the claimants have not examined the issuing authority of the Ext.3 so that the O.P. could cross examine him. However, considering the other certificates exhibited by the claimants in support of the fact that the deceased was a progressive farmer, so Rs.5,000/- only can reasonably be taken as the monthly income of the deceased being a skilled labourer, and accordingly his annual income comes to Rs.60,000/- only. So, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.60,000/- x 16 = Rs.9,60,000/- only, and if the amount of compensation so arrived is reduced by 1/3 rd in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have been incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive, then the amount comes to Rs.6,40,000/- only. The claimant is further entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- only as funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- only for loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- only for loss of estate under the head of general damages, which comes to total amount of Rs.6,60,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand) only. Accordingly, both the issues have been answered. O R D E R 11. In view of the findings arrived earlier in the foregoing issues, I find and hold that the claimants are entitled to get an awarded amount of Rs.6,60,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand) only. Further, the claimants are entitled to get 7.5 % p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realisation. The OP No.3, United India Insurance Company Ltd. is to pay the awarded amount of Rs.6,60,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand) only. The said Insurance company is to deposit the awarded amount within 60 days from

7 7 MACT Case No.24/2012. the date of passing this award. 12. In this instant case, as there are three claimants, so each of them will get Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Three) only, and out of the share of claimant No.3, the claimant No.1 will make fix deposit of Rs.1 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh) only in the name of Claimant No.3 in a nationalised bank for a period of 15 years, and the Claimant No.1 will deposit the FD certificate in this Tribunal for safe custody, and after maturity of the said amount, same will be released in favour of the Claimant No.3 for her benefits on the prayer of the claimant No This MACT case is disposed of, accordingly, on contest. 14. Both the parties will bear their respective costs. 15. Let a copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the OP No.3, United India Insurance Company Ltd. for compliance. Given under my hand and seal of this Tribunal on this 9 th day of January, Dictated & corrected by me - ( I. Ali ) Member, M.A.C.T. Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. ( I. Ali ) Member, M.A.C.T. Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. Transcribed & typed by- S.Kshattry, Stenographer.