New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Kabita Thapa and 2 Ors

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Heard Ms. A. Biyani, learned counsel representing the appellant. Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶2This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 01.11.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari in MAC Case No.332/2014.

¶3On 25.10.2014 at about 4.30 P.M. near Hatigate on Balipara to Bhalukpong PWD Road, Tez Bahadur Thapa was riding his bicycle. He was knocked down by a MAHINDRA XYLO vehicle bearing Registration No.AR-01-F/5370. Tez Bahadur Thapa died instantly. He was 50 years old and has left behind his wife, two sons and one daughter. The MAHINDRA XYLO vehicle bearing Registration No.AR-01-F/5370 was insured under the appellant Insurance Company.

¶4The claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶5The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.9,45,160/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the claimants. The Tribunal directed the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation.

¶6Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant insurance company filed this appeal on the ground that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was not valid on the date of the accident. According to the insurance company, the said policy was valid up to 03.10.2024 and the accident took place on 25.10.2014. Page No.# 3/3

¶7I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

¶8I have gone through the written statement filed before the Tribunal by the appellant insurance company. I have found that the plea that on 25.10.2014 the insurance policy was not valid, was not taken before the Tribunal.

¶9The insurance company had examined two witnesses. These two witnesses never deposed anything about the validity of the insurance policy.

¶10The term appeal means the judicial examination by a higher court of the decision of an inferior court. Appeal in other word means the removal of a cause from an inferior court to superior court for purpose of testing the soundness of the decision of inferior court. An appeal in legal parlance is held to mean the removal of a cause from an inferior or subordinate to superior tribunal or forum in order to test and scrutinize the corrections of impugned decisions.

¶11This Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. It has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a correct finding.

¶12The appeal is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed and disposed of. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010050662018 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oMACApp./289/2018ooooooooo NEWoINDIAoASSURANCEoCOMPANYoLTD.o HAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoAToNEWoINDIAoASSURANCEoBUILDINGo 87,oMAHATMAoGANDHIoROAD,oMUMBAIoANDoONEoOFoTHEoREGIONALo OFFICEoAToG.S.oROAD,oABC,oGUWAHATIoANDoONEoOFoITSoBRANCHoOFFICEo AToNALBARI VERSUSo KABITAoTHAPAoANDo2oORSo W/OoLATEoTEZoBAHADURoTHAPA,oPERMANENToR/OoVILLAGEoGARMARA,o POoCHARIDUAR,oPSoCHARIDUAR,oDIST.oSONITPUR,oASSAM 2:LOISEoJEBISOW oD/OoP.K.oJEBISOW oR/OoLOWERoBHALUKPONG oPOoBHALUKPONG oPIN-790114 oDIST.oWSToKAMENG oARUNACHALoPRADESHo OWNERoOFoVEHICLEoNO.oAR-01-F/5370o(MAHINDRAoXILO oLMV) 3:TONKEYoJEBISOW oS/OoLATEoKHARUoJEBISOW oR/OoVILLAGEoBHALUKPONG oPOoANDoPSoBHALUKPONG oPIN-79011o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oKoKoBHATRAo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oMRoDoMONDAL(R2oANDo3)oo Page No.# 2/3 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA For the Appellant: Ms. A. Biyani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. J. Kalita, Advocate Date of Hearing : 28.05.2024. Date of Judgment : 25.07.2024.