Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 25 (GAU)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rodingliani

2010-01-20

C.R.SARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. Lallianzuala Sailo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1. None appears for the Respondent No. 2. 2. By this appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Judgment and Award dated 12.1.2009. passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 113 of 2003 has been challenged. 3. The son of the claimant, namely, Mr. Lalfamkima, met with a vehicular accident and sustained injuries as a result of which he died. On the death her son, the claimant claimed a compensation by filing a claim petition under the Motor Vehicle Act. The Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by his Judgment and Award, dated 4.2.2005, awarded a compensation of Rs. 9,78,000/- in addition to Rs. 50,000/-, paid under no fault liability scheme, with an interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum thereon. 4. Being aggrieved by the said award, the Insurer i.e. present Petitioner filed an Appeal being Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Appeal No. 25/2005 before this Court and vide Judgment and order dated 7.2.2007, this Court allowed the appeal and remitted back the matter to the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with a direction that the parties shall be afforded further opportunity to adduce evidence and thereafter the same shall be concluded in accordance with law. 5. After receipt of the said order, the Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal gave opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence. By the impugned Judgment and Award, dated 12.1.2009, the learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram disposed of the case by awarding compensation of Rs. 9,78,000/- i.e. the amount awarded by his predecessor in office. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and award, the Insurer of the offending vehicle has come up with this appeal on the grounds, amongst others, that the Learned Trial Judge, by filing to give decision in respect of the issues in the said case and also by filing to give reason for awarding the said amount of compensation, committed illegality. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and award, the Insurer of the offending vehicle has come up with this appeal on the grounds, amongst others, that the Learned Trial Judge, by filing to give decision in respect of the issues in the said case and also by filing to give reason for awarding the said amount of compensation, committed illegality. Referring to Rule, the 276 of the Mizoram Motor Vehicle Rules, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that as prescribed by the said rule, a claimed Tribunal, while making award is required to record, concisely, in a Judgment the findings on each of the issues framed and the reasons for such findings etc. 6. It is submitted that the learned Trial Judge did not record any findings and reasons thereof in making the award and as such the impugned judgment cannot stand in the eye of law. There can be no dispute that the Trial Judge is required to give findings and reasons in respect of the issues framed for determination of the claim. The Tribunal is also required to give findings regarding the age of the victim, his income, the dependency and the multiplier used in the calculating compensation. 7. Considering the submissions, made by the learned Counsels appearing on both the parties, and carefully perusing the impugned judgment and award, I find the learned Trial Judge neither discussed the issues, framed in this case, nor gave any findings in respect of the said issues. 8. The learned Trial Judge also did not mention the age, the income, the dependency of the victim and the multiplier used in deciding that the Petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 9,78,000/- as compensation. As the appeal preferred against the earlier judgment and award was allowed and the matter was remitted back for disposal, it was duty of the learned Trial Judge to decide the matter afresh by giving decisions and reasons in respect of the issues as per law. In the present, the learned Trial Judge simply repeated the earlier award, granted by his Predecessor in office, which was not lawful. The appeal being allowed, the award made by the Predecessor in office was set aside and as such the earlier award was no longer an award in the eye of law. In the present, the learned Trial Judge simply repeated the earlier award, granted by his Predecessor in office, which was not lawful. The appeal being allowed, the award made by the Predecessor in office was set aside and as such the earlier award was no longer an award in the eye of law. Therefore, in my considered view, the learned Trial Judge committed error by simply repeating the award granted by his Predecessor in office, without giving any reasons thereof. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find sufficient merit in this appeal requiring interference with impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram to dispose of the same afresh, after giving opportunity to make argument by both the parties. While disposing the matter, the learned Trial Judge shall give reasons and findings in respect of the issues and shall consider the age, income and dependency factor etc. as per law. 10. With the above observation the matter is disposed of. It is expected that the entire exercise shall completed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the record. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Judge on 8.2.2010. 11. Registry shall send back the record urgently so that the records can reached the learned Trial Judge on or before the date.