COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KAMRUP :: GUWAHATI Present :- Paran Kumar Phukan Member, MACT Kamrup, Guwahati MAC Case No.

Transcription

1 COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KAMRUP :: GUWAHATI Present :- Paran Kumar Phukan Member, MACT Kamrup, Guwahati MAC Case No. 161/ Mrs Dipa Bora 2 Sri Moleswar Bora 3 Mrs Sarumai Bora 4 Miss Dimpi Bora 5 Sri Dhanmani Bora.. Claimants - VS 1 Mrs Namita Devi (Owner of Vehicle No. AS-01/T-2229) 2 Sri Niranjan Ghose (Driver of the above vehicle) 3 New India Assurance Co Ltd (Insurer of the above vehicle).. Opp Parties Advocate for the claimants : Mr Dhruba Bania Advocate for the OP No. 1 : Mr H Sarma, B Sarma Advocate for the OP No. 3 : Mr R Bharali Date of hearing argument : Date of judgment : J U D G M E N T This claim case has arisen out of a road traffic accident which occurred on at Deotola under Bihpuria Police Station, involving bus bearing registration no. AS-01/T-2229, which was insured with the OP No. 3, New India Assurance Co Ltd. According to the claimant, on the day of the accident the deceased, Jayanta Bora, was proceeding towards his home at Deotola from Barpathar in his bicycle and when he arrived near Barpathar, the offending bus bearing registration no. AS-01/T-2229 which was coming from the opposite direction and in a very high speed, knocked the bicycle of the deceased from behind, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 24 years and his monthly income was Rs 6000/- from business of vegetables.

2 2 The OP No. 1, the owner of the vehicle, in her written statement averred that at the relevant time the vehicle was duly insured with the New India Assurance Co Ltd, and as such the company is liable to indemnify her if any award is passed against her. The OP No. 3, insurer of the vehicle, in its written statement denied most of the averments made by the claimant in the claim-petition and wanted strict proof. The company declined to accept the liability if there was any violation of terms and conditions of the policy or the driver did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. Upon the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication :- (i) (ii) Whether victim, (Late) Jayanta Bora alias Sumsumi Bora, died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated , involving the vehicle No. AS-01/T-2229 and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle? Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable? During enquiry, the claimant examined herself as PW-1 and she also examined one eye-witness as PW-2 and she produced some documents in support of her claim. The contesting opposite Parties have not examined any witness on their behalf. I have heard arguments for the parties and carefully perused the entire materials brought on record and my findings on the above issues are as follows :- ISSUE NOs. 1 & 2 Both the issues are taken up together for decisions and discussions for sake of convenience and brevity. It has been averred by the claimant in the petition and also stated by PW-1 in her evidence that her husband was knocked down by the offending bus from the front side while he was coming to his home in his bicycle. She has categorically stated that the accident took place due to rash and

3 3 negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus which caused death of her husband. Admittedly, she has not seen the accident and in support of her case she examined Sri Hemo Gogoi, who claims to have seen the accident. Supporting the version of PW-1, PW-2 deposed that he saw the bus hitting the bicyclist while he was coming to home from daily market. His evidence reveals that deceased fell down after he was knocked down by the bus and he died on the spot. He has also stated the number of the bus which was involved in the accident and deposed that it was driven at excessive speed. It is further found that the bicyclist was riding his bicycle on his own side of the road and there was no fault on his part. Although the vehicle ran away after the accident but it was caught by police. In crossexamination he also reaffirmed that he had seen the accident from a distance of about 24/25 ft. According to the claimant, the bicycle of her husband was knocked down by the offending bus, as a result of which her husband sustained grievous injuries and died on the same day. The claimant has categorically stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the insurer to show that there was contributory negligence or that the accident took place due to fault of the deceased. The claimant produced accident information report as Ex-1, certified copy of FIR as Ex-2, certified copy of charge-sheet as Ex-3, certified copy of seizure lists as Ex-4 & 5 and PM Report as Ex-6. In the accident information report the vehicle no. AS-01/Ut-2229 has been shown as the offending vehicle and Bihpuria PS registered a case vide PS Case no. 05/10 u/s 279/304-A IPC. In the FIR, the date, time and manner of the accident has been clearly spelt out including the number of the bus involved in the accident. During investigation police seized the bus vide seizure list as Ex-4 and the same has been duly proved. After completing investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the bus as Ex-3. The PM Report also confirmed that the deceased died due to accidental injuries. The oral evidence of the claimant coupled with the evidence of eye witness, PW-2 and the documents filed by her established that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. There is no dispute that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the New India Assurance Co Ltd.

4 4 entitled to. Now the most pertinent question is how much compensation she is Evidence of the claimant is that her husband was doing business of vegetables and agricultural products and his monthly income was Rs 6000/-. In support of her evidence, she produced income certificate Ex-8 issued by the Gaon Burah, certifying that monthly income of the deceased was Rs 6000/-. But the concerned Gaon Burah has not been examined to prove the document. On the basis of oral evidence of the claimant, it cannot be held with certainty that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs 6000/-. The deceased was a young man aged about 25/26 years and was capable of earning and he was maintaining a large family, consisting of his wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased and as such his monthly income is assumed to be Rs 4000/-. The claimant could not produce any age certificate of the deceased. In the PM Report, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 24 years and as such, he can safely be placed in the age group of years and the appropriate multiplier is 17 as per Sarla Verma Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (6) SCC 121. Thus, taking the above income of the deceased, one-fourth of the amount is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and after such deduction his annual income comes to Rs 36000/-. Claimant certainly incurred some amount for funeral etc, and as such, besides loss of dependency, claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs 5000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs 10000/- for loss of consortium and Rs 5000/- for loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation to which the claimant is entitled is assessed as under :- Loss of dependency X 17 : Rs 6,12, Funeral expenses : 5, Loss of estate : 5, Loss of consortium : 10, Total : Rs 6,32, That the vehicle involved in the instant case was insured with the opposite party, New India Assurance Co Ltd, is not in dispute. Hence, the insurer, New India Assurance Co Ltd, has to satisfy the award. The issues are accordingly decided in favour of the claimant.

5 5 A W A R D Rs 6,32,000/- (Six lakh thirty-two thousand) is awarded with 6% pa from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e , till payment. The opposite party, New India Assurance Co Ltd, is directed to pay the award within one month from the date of order. Out of the awarded amount, one lakh shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the wife of the deceased for 3 years and 50,000/- each shall be kept in the name of two children till they attain majority. A sum of Rs 1,00,000/- is to be paid to the mother of the deceased Given under my hand & seal of this Court on this 24th day of May (Paran Kumar Phukan) Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kamrup, Guwahati