Page 1 IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GOLAGHAT PRESENT: Smti. I. Barman, A.J.S. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat, Assam MAC CASE NO.16/2010 (Under Section 166 of the MV Act) SMTI. RINU BARMAN, W/O Late Anil Barman, Vill- Bishnupur Gaon, P.O-Kanaighat, Mouza- Marangi, P.S- Golaghat, Dist: Golaghat, Assam. Claimant - VERSUS 1. SRI AJOY GOGOI @ AJIT GOGOI, S/O, Late Bhadreswar Gogoi, Vill- Numaligarh Rowdowar Gaon, P.S -Bokakhat, Dist-Golaghat, Assam 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Mitha Pukhuri Road, Jorhat, Dist-Jorhat, Assam. Opp.Parties
Page 2 Advocate for the claimant : S. Hiloidari Date of Argument : 02.04.15 Date of Judgment : 10.04.15 J U D G M E N T 1. This claim case arose out of a petition preferred u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, (M.V.A. in short), by deceased Anil Barman claiming compensation of from the opposite parties an account of injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. After his death during pendency of the case, his wife the present claimant being heir of the deceased was substituted. 2. The case of the claimant in brief is that on 05.01.2009 in the evening while Anil Barmen was returning from his duty at Numaligarh Refinery Canteen by walking on N.H.-39 towards his residence in the west, the offending motor cycle bearing No. NL-02/E-2763 (LML Freedom) knocked down him from his back side. As a result he fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter the nearby people took the injured to N.R.L Hospital. Thereafter the injured took treatment in various hospitals. He sustained fracture of right leg and injuries on his head and other parts of the body. It is also mentioned that due to the accident the injured became a physical disabled person. Hence claimed Rs.9,11,000/- from the opposite parties as compensation. 3. In spite of receipt of notice the opposite party No 1did not contest the case and as such the case was proceeded exparte against him. On the other hand though the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the claim petition but in response to the notice by filing written statement the Insurance company pleaded that at the time of accident the motorcycle bearing No. NL-02-E-2763 was not under coverage of the policy with the answering opposite party, which was valid from 27.07.2007 to 26.07.08, whereas the accident took place on 05.01.2009 and as such the
Page 3 insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. After filing written statement, vide order dated 09.07.12 the name of opposite party No. 2 was struck off. 5. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed: i) Whether there is cause of action for the claim petition? ii) Whether Motor Vehicle accident took place on 05.01.2009 as alleged? iii) Whether accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No.NL-02-E-2763 (L.M.L Freedom) Motor Cycle? iv) Whether insurance company liable to pay compensation? v) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what would be the amount and from whom? 6. In course of hearing, the claimant has examined PW1 by filing evidence on affidavit. 7. I have heard argument from the claimant side and carefully gone through the evidence of record. My findings in respect of the above noted issues, in view of the evidence on record and in the light of the submission of the learned counsel of the claimant are as follows: 8. Issue No. (ii) and (iii): The present claimant Smti. Rinu Barman the wife of the injured Anil Barman who died on 06.07.12 stated in evidence as PW-1 that on 05.01.2009 in the evening her deceased husband was returning from his duty at Numaligarh Refinery Canteen by walking on N.H.-39 towards his residence in the west. At
Page 4 that time the offending LML Freedom motor cycle bearing No. NL-02/E-2763 coming n rash and negligent manner knocked down him from his back side as a result of which he fell down and become unconscious. Thereafter the nearby people took the injured to N.R.L Hospital. Thereafter the injured took treatment in H.G.M. Nursing Home, Golaghat. She also stated that as on that day her husband was late in returning home hence she came out in front of her house and then she had seen the accident which was not far from her house. She further stated that in the accident the right leg of the injured was fractured and due to the injury he became permanent disable person.in support of the evidence, P.W-1 proved the Accident Report as Ext.1, permanent disability certificate as Ext-2, Cash Memos as Ext.3 to Ext. 16, Ext-4, Ext-11, Ext.12, Ext- 14, Ext-16 and discharge certificate as Ext.17. 9. From the evidence of P.W-1 and other documents proved in this case, it reveals that Anil Barman sustained injury due to the motor vehicle accident occurred on 05.01.2009. The Accident Report Ext.1 issued by I/C, Numaligarh Out Post also shows that on 05.01.2009 at 9.30 P.M. the accident took place on 39 high way near Bishnupur State Bank, involving the vehicle No NL-02/E-2763 (Motorcycle L.M.L Freedom) showing Anil Barman (since deceased) as injured. Thus from the evidence of the claimant both oral and documentary and in absence of any legal evidence, contrary thereto, I am of the opinion that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing No. NL-02-E-2763 (L.M.L Freedom) and Anil Barman sustained injury in the said accident occurred on05.01.2009 at 9.30 P.M.Accordingly, these issues two issues are decided in favour of the claimant. 10. Issue No. (i) and (iv): These two issues are settled on the plea of the Insurance Company, whose name was later on struck off. As admittedly, the offending motorcycle bearing No.NL-02/E-2763 (L.M.L Freedom) was not under due
Page 5 coverage of valid insurance policy on the day of accident, hence these two issues are found redundant and insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 10. Issue No. (v): This issue relates to the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and extent thereof as well as liability of the opposite party to pay compensation. 11. In view of the forgoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the claimant being the wife of the injured is entitled to get medical expenses incurred during treatment of her husband injured Anil Barman. P.W-1 stated thatshe incurred an expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards treatment of her husband but she submitted cash memos and bills worth of Rs.17508.25/- rounded off Rs. 17,550/-. As such the claimant is entitled to get this amount as medical expenses. 12. The opposite party No.1/ owner of the offending motorcycle bearing No. NL-02/E-2763 is liable to pay compensation. O R D E R 13. In the result the claim petition is allowed exparte against the opposite party No.1. Claimant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,550/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty only) for the injuries sustained by her husband Anil Barman in the motor vehicle accident. The amount of compensation shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date
Page 6 of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 21-01-10 till its realization. The Opp. Party 1/ owner of the motorcycle No.NL-02-E-2763 is directed to pay the amount within the period of 30 days from today i.e.10.04.15 including the interest thereon as mentioned above. 14. Send a copy of the judgment to the Opposite party No.1 i.e. owner of the motorcycle No.NL-02/E-2763 for information and necessary action. 15. Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 10th day of April, 2015 at Golaghat. Dictated & corrected by me. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.. Golaghat. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Golaghat...