Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 343 (TRI)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Malek Miah

2022-08-23

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, West Tripura, Agartala, in Case No.TS.(MAC) No.254 of 2016 and staying of the operation of the impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2021. Further not to proceed with any execution proceeding if any filed by the claimant respondents in the meantime, till disposal of the present appeal. 2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that, on 25.02.2015 the victim Sahara Khatun alias Sayera Begum as a gratuitous passenger went to Indranagar, Agartala boarding vehicle bearing No.TR-01-AQ-0228(Maruti Alto 800) for participating in a religious function of the Muslim Community. On the way back home, when the vehicle reached Ranirbazar, Nalgaria, on Assam-Agartala Road, at about 0.15 hrs of 26.02.2015, while giving pass to another vehicle dashed against a tree on the left side. As a result, Sahara Khatun alias Sayera Begum and the passengers in the said vehicle sustained serious injuries. With the help of the local people and fire service, they were taken to Ranirbazar PHC, wherefrom they were referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala, where the attending doctors declared her dead. Out of the said accident, a police case was registered in Ranirbazar P.S. as Ranirbazar P.S U.D. Case No.02 of 2015, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. following GDE No.960. 3. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10,92,000/- for the death of Sahara Khatun@ Sayera Begum being the wife of the respondent No.1 in a vehicular accident occurred on 26.02.2015. 4. The owner-respondent i.e. the O.P. No.1, owner of the offending vehicle bearing No. TR-01-AQ- 0228(Maruiti Alto 800) contested the case by filing a written statement stating that at the time of the accident, the driver of the alleged vehicle was having a valid driving license. On the alleged date of the accident, the vehicle had all documents like registration certificate, tax token, insurance certificate, etc. The accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle. Further, the vehicle in question is/was insured with the appellant Insurance, Co. at the relevant time of the accident, and if there is any compensation that is to be borne by the appellant, Insurance Company. 5. The accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle. Further, the vehicle in question is/was insured with the appellant Insurance, Co. at the relevant time of the accident, and if there is any compensation that is to be borne by the appellant, Insurance Company. 5. The appellant, Insurance Company also contested the case by filing a writing statement denying and disputing the monthly income, age, profession, and all other claims of the claimants' respondents and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. Further, the appellant- Insurance Company also pleaded that the vehicle was a private vehicle and carried passengers. The said accident took place as the driver of the said vehicle was in a drunken condition at the time of the alleged accident. 6. After considering the written statement, evidence and the argument advanced by the appellant- Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal fastened the entire liability of compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- against the appellant, Insurance Company along with the stipulated rate of interest. 7. Mr. S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Insurance Company argued that the vehicle in question is authorized to carry only 1+3 passengers and beyond that, the concerned Maruti Vehicle is not eligible to carry any passenger beyond its seating capacity. The learned Tribunal has not considered the authorized seating capacity of the concerned Maruti Alto vehicle and passed the award against the appellant, the Insurance Company. Further, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Insurance Company also pleaded that the vehicle was a private vehicle and carried passengers. The said accident took place as the driver of the said vehicle was in a drunken condition at the time of the alleged accident. 8. Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the said argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Insurance Company, and prayed to uphold the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. 9. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record. 10. It is already established that the accident had occurred out of the use of the Maruti Alto 800 bearing No. TR-01-AQ-0228. As such the liability of payment of compensation should be borne by the owner of the Maruti Alto. 9. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record. 10. It is already established that the accident had occurred out of the use of the Maruti Alto 800 bearing No. TR-01-AQ-0228. As such the liability of payment of compensation should be borne by the owner of the Maruti Alto. But the engine number, chassis number, and registration certificate of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-AQ- 0228 as proved by the owner-respondent is covered under the Insurance Policy of the vehicle in question. It is a package policy covering the period from 24.12.2014 to 23.12.2015 and the accident occurred on 26.02.2015 i.e. within the period of the policy. As per the driving license of the driver-Inuchh Miah, he was authorized to drive, M.CYL, LMV-NT, TRANSPORT, LMVCAB w.e.f. 06.01.2009 having validity up to 07.02.2032 for non-transport vehicles and up to 07.02.2015 for transport vehicles. As the vehicle involved in this alleged accident is a non-transport vehicle, the driving license of the driver was valid at the time of the accident. 11. In view of the above observation and the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2021 passed by the learned Motor Claims Tribunal No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.T.S. (MAC)254 of 2016 is just and proper and it needs no interference. 12. Consequently, this instant, appeal stands dismissed.