Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1376 (GAU)

New India Ass Co. Ltd. v. Kalawati Devi

2018-09-17

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. Heard Mr. RC Paul, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G Jalan, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Also heard Mr. A Dutta, learned counsel for Respondent No.9. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25.6.2010 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 2882/2006. 3. The respondent-claimant Kalawati Devi along with her minor children preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') for the death of her husband in a road traffic accident. The case of the claimant is that on 17.2.2006, while her husband who was a labourer by profession, was travelling in an Auto Van bearing Registration No. AS-09-9935, all of a sudden the said vehicle was knocked down by another vehicle bearing Registration No. NL-05/B-0543 (Bus) at Manja Diphu Road. As a result of the accident, claimant's husband sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. A case was also registered against the said bus vide Diphu PS Case No. 29/06 u/s 279/338/437/304-A IPC. Contending that her husband died in the said accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus, a claim petition was filed praying for adequate compensation. 4. The learned Tribunal issued notice to the driver, owner as well as insurer of both the vehicles and, in turn, only the respondents-insurance companies contested the case by filing their respective written statements. The other respondents i.e. the owner and driver of the respective vehicles did not contest the case neither filed any written statement. 5. Upon pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues : "1. Whether the victim, Srinath Yadav, died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 17.02.06 involving vehicle No. NL05/0543 (Bus) and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle ? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable ?" 6. During the course of the proceedings, the claimant examined herself and one another witness. The insurance company also examined one witness in support of its case. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable ?" 6. During the course of the proceedings, the claimant examined herself and one another witness. The insurance company also examined one witness in support of its case. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, came to a finding that the deceased died out of the injuries sustained in the road traffic incident on the date of occurrence due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus. Thereafter, taking into account the age and income of the deceased as Rs. 6000/- per month and after deducting the 1/3rd income, the learned Tribunal determined loss of dependency to tally at Rs. 7,78,000/- and awarded the same to the claimant as compensation for the death of the deceased. The insurer of the said bus, namely, New India Assurance Company Limited was directed to pay the awarded amount within one month, after adjustment of the amount paid towards no fault liability. Out of the awarded amount, Rs. 2,00,000/- was directed to be kept as fixed deposit in the name of the claimant for a period of two years and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each was directed to kept as fixed deposit in the name of the minor children of the deceased till they attain majority. 7. Challenging the aforesaid award, the New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred the instant appeal primarily on three grounds. Firstly, the insurance company has contended that the learned Tribunal committed an error while assessing the income of the deceased as the same is not proved by any documentary evidence. The second contention is that the said incident occurred due to head on collision and, therefore, both the vehicles should have been held guilty for the head on collision rather than fixing liability on one vehicle only. The last contention that has been raised by the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle had no licence at the time of occurrence and, therefore, the insurance company should not have been saddled with the liability to pay compensation. Rather, it is the owner who is liable for violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. Rather, it is the owner who is liable for violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the evidence of the claimant to show that although the claimant side has produced one income certificate, but the author of the said certificate has not been examined to prove the monthly income of the deceased. On examination of the said aspect, it is found to be true that the author of the said income certificate has not been examined by the claimant side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has pointed out that the income of the deceased is duly proved by the claimant side. In this context, the evidence of D.W. 1 is said to be relevant. On due examination of the evidence of D.W.1 who was an investigator of the case, it is found that he has stated in his cross-examination that at the time of investigation, he gathered the information that the deceased had a monthly earning of Rs. 6000/- per month at the relevant time. So, he has confirmed the statement of the claimant side as regards the income rather than denial. The learned Tribunal has also appreciated the aforesaid aspect in its judgment that income of the deceased stands fortified by the evidence of defence witness itself. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735 , wherein by referring to the decision in Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 , it has been observed that a labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business cannot be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. The same observation is very much applicable to the facts of the present case also. The deceased being a rustic thelapuller, his claimant wife cannot be expected to prove his monthly income by any documentary evidence. 10. The same observation is very much applicable to the facts of the present case also. The deceased being a rustic thelapuller, his claimant wife cannot be expected to prove his monthly income by any documentary evidence. 10. Regarding the second contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident took place due to head on collision, learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court dated 1.3.2006 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 3731-3732 of 2002 (Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and Others.), wherein it has been held that where there is a collision between two vehicles from the front side causing damage to both the vehicles, the same can be said to be a composite negligence and in that case, both the vehicles are liable for the accident. On due examination of the aforesaid observations and the evidence on record, it is found that the facts of the present case are quite different from the finding that has been recorded. In the present case, the specific case of the claimant is that while the deceased was travelling in an Auto Van, the offending vehicle which was a bus, came in a high speed from the opposite direction and suddenly hit the Auto Van. PW-2, who is an eye witness to the occurrence, has also stated that the accident took place only due to the fault of the said bus. There was no reporting of any damage to any of the vehicle as there is no MVI report or no evidence from the claimant side to that effect. That being the position, only because of the fact that the Auto Van was hit from the front side, the said accident cannot be held to be a case of composite negligence in the given background of the case. The learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record and, hence, it needs no more elaboration that it was the offending vehicle i.e. the bus which caused the accident alone. 11. The last contention raised is that the driver had no valid driving licence at the time of occurrence. As regards the said fact, one defence witness i.e. the investigator has been examined by the insurance company. 11. The last contention raised is that the driver had no valid driving licence at the time of occurrence. As regards the said fact, one defence witness i.e. the investigator has been examined by the insurance company. It is to be found that in support of the said contention, the said witness has stated that he has obtained a certificate from the DTO, Kohima to the effect that no D/L was issued from the office of DTO, Kohima vide Exhibit-B. According to the said witness, on enquiry in the said office it was apprised that no licence was issued from the said office (DTO, Kohima). In this context, learned counsel for the respondent has led this Court to the cross-examination of the said witness who has stated that during investigation that he was informed by DTO, Kohima that record of the concerned D/L could not be found. The witness has further stated in his cross-examination that there are 4/5 DTO offices in Nagaland. Thus, from the information received from DTO, Kohima it cannot be conclusively proved that no such D/L was issued from any other office of DTO in Nagaland. The learned Tribunal has also appreciated the aforesaid aspect that appellant has not enquired regarding the D/L in respect of other offices of DTO in Nagaland to show that said D/L was not issued from other offices. Thus, there appears to be no illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the respondents have failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence. In this context, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 6.3.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2018 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed about non-possessing of driving licence in the following words : "6.(iii) .......... Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to driver at the relevant time. ............. ........ (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident.". 12. Having regard to the discussion made above and the legal principle laid down as well as the factual position that emerges from the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that there was no any error in fixing the liability towards the insurer of the bus i.e. the appellant herein. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 14. The appellant is directed to deposit the awarded amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from today, after adjustment of the amount, if any already paid. The statutory amount be refunded. Return the LCR.