Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 90 (GAU)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. LALTHANKIMI

2016-02-09

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, counsel for the appellant in MAC.App. No. 6 of 2015 & MAC. App.No. 7 of 2015. Also heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, counsel for the respondent No.1 in both the above cases and the counsel for the Cross-Objector in C.O. No. 6 of 2015 & C.O. No. 5 of 2015. Also heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, counsel for the respondent No.2 in both the cases. The respondent No.3 is not represented even though notice has been served upon the respondent No.3. 2. The 2 (two) appeals and 2 (two) Cross Objections are being disposed of by a common Order. 3. Due to a motor vehicle accident involving one MAXI Cab (TATA Sumo) bearing registration No. MZ-01-C/8259 belonging to the respondent No.2 which was hypothecated to the respondent No.3, one Lalringngheta, 20 years and Lalhuliana, 60 years died. Accordingly, MACT Case No. 18 of 2012 was filed by the mother of the deceased Lalringngheta and MACT Case No. 19 of 2012 was filed by the wife of the deceased Lalhuliana. To cut a long story short, during the proceedings of MACT No. 18 of 2012 and MACT No. 19 of 2012, the Insurance Company came to know of a new fact, which was to the effect that the Insurance Policy issued by the respondent No.3 was a fake Insurance Policy. 4. The counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) Mr. Lalfakawma submits that the respondent No.3 is an Agent of the appellant and the duty of the agent as per the guidelines of the appellant is that the respondent No.3 can only receive premium for the Insurance Policy. However, the issuance of the Insurance Policy in respect of a vehicle can only be done by the appellant, i.e. the principle of the Agent. The appellants counsel also submits that though the claimant had produced the Insurance Policy in respect of the accident vehicle (TATA Sumo), on checking the records it was found that the said Insurance Policy No. had been allotted to one Sudhir Sharma in respect of one Maruti 800 bearing registration No. RJ-14-3C-1297. The appellants counsel also submits that though the claimant had produced the Insurance Policy in respect of the accident vehicle (TATA Sumo), on checking the records it was found that the said Insurance Policy No. had been allotted to one Sudhir Sharma in respect of one Maruti 800 bearing registration No. RJ-14-3C-1297. The respondents counsel also submits that the claimant had produced Insurance Policy for 3 (three) consecutive years which was issued by the respondent No.3 in respect of the accident vehicle Maxi cab (TATA Sumo) bearing registration No. MZ-01-C/8259 and the premium for the same had not been deposited with the appellant. The appellants counsel submits that in view of the new fact that had come to light, the appellant preferred an amendment of his written statement in MACT, Aizawl. The same was allowed by the MACT, Aizawl and the Insurance Company, accordingly, filed an additional written statement. 5. The appellants counsel submits that the MACT, Aizawl, thereafter framed 2 (two) additional issues in both the MACT Cases on 14.08.2013 as follows :- "(iii) Whether the purported policy of insurance No.121400/31/09/01/0000108 indicating coverage for the period 7.8.2009 to 6.8.2010, filed by the claimant along with her claim petition, was issued by the OP No.2, insurance company, or an agent of the insurance company ? (iv) Whether the OP No. 2 would be liable under the said purported policy of insurance to provide coverage as indicated in it ?" 6. The appellants counsel submits that subsequent to the framing of the 2(two) additional issues by the MACT, Aizawl the claims were disposed of by the MACT, Aizawl vide Judgment & Award dated 10.12.2014. 7. The appellants counsel submits that the Judgment & Award dated 10.12.2014 passed in MACT case No. 18 of 2012 and MACT cases No. 19 of 2012 are liabale to be set aside inasmuch as, the learned MACT, Aizawl did not decide the 2 (two) new additional issues before passing the impugned Judgment and Award. 8. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, counsel for the claimant in both the cases submits that the compensation awarded by the MACT, Aizawl in both the above 2 cases were meagre and that the claimants are entitled to a higher amount of compensation as per law. 9. Mr. 8. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, counsel for the claimant in both the cases submits that the compensation awarded by the MACT, Aizawl in both the above 2 cases were meagre and that the claimants are entitled to a higher amount of compensation as per law. 9. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that as per Order 14, Rule 2 CPC, the MACT, Aizawl was to decide all the issues framed and thereafter pass Judgment and Awards. The senior counsel submits that the learned MACT, Aizawl did not decide the 2 (two) new additional issues framed by the MACT, Aizawl on 14.8.2013 and has instead passed the impugned Judgment and Award dated 10.12.2014 only on the basis of the 2 (two) issues framed earlier on 30.4.2012. The learned senior counsel thus submits that the present case should be remanded back to the learned MACT, Aizawl so as to enable the MACT, Aizawl to decide the additional 2 (two) issues framed on 14.8.2013. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. I have also perused the Judgment and Award dated 10.12.2014 passed in MACT case No. 18 of 2012 and MACT case No. 19 of 2012. A perusal of the impugned Judgment and Awards does not indicate that the MACT, Aizawl had decided the additional issues framed on 14.8.2013. The learned MACT, Aizawl has to decide as to whether Insurance Policy submitted by the claimant and allegedly issued by the respondent No.3 in respect of the TATA Sumo bearing registration No. MZ-01-C/8259 was in fact issued in respect of the Maruti 800, owned by one Sudhir Sharma. The question of vicarious liability of a principle with regard to the act of an agent will apply only when the agent acts in the course of business or employment of the principle. Illegal act of an agent beyond the scope of business/employment of the principle cannot bind the principal. In other words, an un-lawful act of an agent cannot bind the principle. 11. The cross objections of the claimant, are to the effect that the claimants are entitled to a higher compensation amount. The claim for higher compensation can be decided only after all the issues framed by the learned MACT, Aizawl has been decided and findings made in that regard. 11. The cross objections of the claimant, are to the effect that the claimants are entitled to a higher compensation amount. The claim for higher compensation can be decided only after all the issues framed by the learned MACT, Aizawl has been decided and findings made in that regard. As stated above, I find that the learned MACT, Aizawl has not decided or made any findings in respect to the additional 2 (two) issues framed vide its Order dated 14.8.2013. In that view of the matter, the impugned Judgment and Awards dated 10.12.2014 passed in MACT Case No. 18 of 2012 and MACT Case No. 19 of 2012 are hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned MACT, Aizawl to decide the 2 (two) additional issues framed by it on 14.8.2013. The learned MACT, Aizawl shall allow the parties to adduce further evidence for adjudicating the 2 (two) additional issues, if required. 12. The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand)only each submitted by the appellants/Insurance Company shall be released by the Registry to the Manager of the New India Assurance Company Limited with interest, if any . 13. The question of whether the claimant is entitled to a higher compensation amount is also to be decided by the learned MACT, Aizawl. The above appeals and Cross Objections are disposed of accordingly.