Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 389 (TRI)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kuputi Tripura

2017-10-27

T.VAIPHEI

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. H. Deb, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents. 2. Both the appeals arising out of the judgment dated 30-06-2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Case No. T.S(MAC) 03/2015 and arising out of the same accident involving the same parties are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. In MAC Appeal No.20 of 2017 the facts of the case are that on 18.04.2013 the deceased, Karacha Tripura allias Karanjoy was knocked down by the Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No. TR-02-3883 in front of a place called Manu Central Forest Nursery. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous bleeding injuries on his person. He was immediately shifted to Manu Hospital and was subsequently taken to RGM Hospital, Kailashahar because of his precarious condition. He succumbed to his injuries in the early morning of 21.04.2013. The accident was reported to the Manu police station, which was registered as Case No. S30/2013 U/s 279/304(A) IPC. The deceased was stated to be 27 years old and was a labourer by occupation earning Rs.9,000/-per month at the time of the accident. The claimant, who is the wife of the deceased for herself and on behalf of her minor son has filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.16,70,000/-for the death of the deceased. The specific case of the claimant-respondents is that the vehicular accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Both the insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle resisted the claim petition by filing their respective written statements wherein they denied the claims of the claimants. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “(i) Whether karanjoy Tripura died in a vehicular accident on 18.04.2013 involving vehicle No. TR-02-3883? (ii) Whether the claimant-petitioner and her minor child are the legal representatives of Karanjoy? (iii) Whether they are entitled to compensation and if so, to what extent? (iv) Who is liable to pay such compensation?” A number of documents were exhibited by both the parties to substantiate their respective contentions. On the conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment was passed by the Tribunal. 6. (iii) Whether they are entitled to compensation and if so, to what extent? (iv) Who is liable to pay such compensation?” A number of documents were exhibited by both the parties to substantiate their respective contentions. On the conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment was passed by the Tribunal. 6. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that the Tribunal should not have awarded any compensation to the claimants since the claim petition is based on false and concocted story and no vehicular accident causing the death of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the fact that the claim petition is based on false and concocted story is evident from the lodging of the complaint over the accident with the police only after 8(eight) months of the alleged accident. For this reason alone, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondents is, however, submits that no evidence could be adduced by the appellant to disprove the allegation of the appellant that there was no vehicular accident which resulted in the death of the deceased and as such the findings of the Tribunal to this effect is not liable to be interfered with. He, however, submits that the impugned judgment and award should be enhanced from Rs.7,70,000/-to Rs.15,40,000/-. 8. On reading the deposition of the claimant-respondents and her cross-examination made by the appellant in juxtaposition, it can be easily seen that the appellant has miserably failed to disprove the case of the claimant-respondents that the deceased died due to the vehicular accident in question. When there is no denial of the assertion made by the claimant-respondents in her examination-in-chief on oath that the deceased died on 21.04.2013 due to road traffic accident involving the vehicle (Auto Rickshaw) owned by respondent No.1, the finding made by the Tribunal to that effect does not call for my interference. In so far as the award of Rs. 7,70,000/-is concerned, in my opinion on the basis of the available materials on record, I do not also find any illegality therein; in fact, the award is quite proportionate and fair. On the whole, I am satisfied that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference of this Court. 7,70,000/-is concerned, in my opinion on the basis of the available materials on record, I do not also find any illegality therein; in fact, the award is quite proportionate and fair. On the whole, I am satisfied that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference of this Court. On a parity of reasoning, I also do not find any ground for enhancement of the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. Resultantly, both the appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed. The appellant-insurance company is, therefore, directed to deposit the entire awarded amount together with interest @ 7% per annum accrued there on from the date of the claim petition with this Registry within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment for payment to the claimant-respondents. As and when the awarded amount is deposited, the same shall be released to the claimant-respondents in terms of the directions made by the Tribunal. Any amount already paid to, or deposited by the claimant shall be adjusted accordingly. Transmit the L.C. records to the Tribunal forthwith.