Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 101 (GAU)

COLAMANDALAM v. S. CHAWNGMAWII

2018-01-23

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. Roshan Subedi, counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1. 2. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 though they were served notice by way of Dasti Service. 3. The appellant herein has made a challenge to the Judgment and Award dated 16.11.2016 passed by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 44/2014, wherein compensation amount of Rs. 6,55,600/- along with interest @9 % per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment, has been awarded to the claimant/respondent No. 1. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the claimant/respondent No. 1 is the younger sister of her deceased sister Renhpari, who died in a motor accident on 11.01.2014. The deceased Renhpari was a Vegetable Vendor and was a spinster till her death. 5. The appellant's counsel submits that the claimant/respondent No. 1 could have been awarded any compensation on the death of her elder sister as the claimant was a married woman, with her husband being a Government servant. He also submits that the evidence of the claimant's husband was to the effect that he supported his wife (claimant) and two children from his income as a Government servant. He thus submits that there was no dependency on the part of the claimant from the income of the deceased. 6. The appellant's counsel also submits that the deceased has a minor daughter namely, Suidawngi, 15 year old, who could have claimed compensation. However, the said minor child of the deceased was a party in the MACT and even before this Court. The appellant's counsel submits that there being no dependency on the part of the claimant/respondent No. 1, the learned MACT erred in awarding compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1. 7. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, counsel for the respondent No. 1 fairly admits that the evidence having proven the fact that there was no dependency on the part of the respondent No. 1 and as, the deceased had a minor child, namely, Suidawngi, the compensation amount should have been awarded to the minor child and to the claimant. However, the minor child was never made a party in the MACT proceedings. 8. Mr. However, the minor child was never made a party in the MACT proceedings. 8. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 prays that in the event of the impugned judgment and award being set aside, liberty should be given to the minor child of the deceased to make an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. The facts of the case shows that there was no dependency on the part of the claimant/respondent No. 1 with regard to the deceased. The claimant/respondent No. 1 was a married woman, being supported by her husband, who was a Government servant. Further, the deceased allegedly had a minor child Suidawngi. Accordingly, the child of the deceased would have a legitimate right to claim compensation on the basis of dependency, provided the child can prove the fact that she is the child of the deceased. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and as the claimant/respondent No. 1 was dependent upon the deceased, the impugned Judgment and Award dated 16.11.2016 passed by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 44/2014 is bad in law and accordingly, the same is set aside. 12. It is needless to observe that there is no limitation for filing a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly, there is no bar for the alleged minor child of the deceased to make a claim for compensation, as allowed, as per law. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 14. Send back the LCR. 15. The appellant is allowed to take back the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) submitted before the Registry.