Smti Geeta Mandal v. The Regional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and 2 Ors

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Heard Ms. D.D. Roy, learned counsel representing the appellant as well as Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company.

¶2This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment dated

18.08.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup(M) in MAC Case No.80/2016.

¶3On 27.12.2015 at about 10.20 P.M., Rajesh Mandal was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.AS-01-AN-4529. At Jyotikuchi at Lokhra Road, a truck bearing registration No.BR-30-B-3439, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, knocked the motorcycle of Rajesh Mandal. He sustained serious injuries and he was taken to GMCH where he was declared dead.

¶4Late Rajesh Mondal was 27 years old and was an employee of NF Railway, who earned monthly salary of ₹49,545/-.

¶5The insurance company of the Motorcycle was not made a party in the claim petition.

¶6The Tribunal agreed that the claimant was entitled to receive the total compensation of ₹65,16,948/-. The Tribunal held that it was a head-on-collision between two vehicles and the motorcycle of the deceased had equally contributed to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company of the truck was liable to pay half of the total compensation of ₹65,16,948/-. The Tribunal directed that the respondent Insurance Company to pay an amount of ₹32,58,474/-.

¶7The appeal has been filed on the ground that the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident. According to the appellant, the motorcycle never contributed to the accident. Page No.# 3/3

¶8I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

¶9Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself only. She has stated in her cross-examination that she did not bring any eye witness of the accident to prove her case. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that the said truck had knocked the Motorcycle of the deceased on the front side.

¶10The aforesaid facts, prima facie, established that there was a head-on-collision between the motorcycle and the truck. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a correct finding.

¶11The appeal is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010257442018 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oMACApp./1004/2018ooooooooo SMTIoGEETAoMANDALo W/OoSHRIoRAJMOHANoMANDAL,oBHASKARoNAGAR,oNRIPENoBORAoPATH,o BLOCKoAoHOUSEoNO.o17,oP.S.oFATASILoAMBARI,oDIST.oKAMRUPo(ASSAM),o PINo781025 VERSUSo THEoREGIONALoMANAGERoUNITEDoINDIAoINSURANCEoCO.oLTDoANDo2o ORSo CHRISTIANBASTI,oGUWAHATIo(INSURERoOFoTHEoTRUCKoVIDEoPOLICYo NO.o1304003114P111066868oVALIDoUPoTOo12.03.2016o)oPINo781005 2:ARUNoKUMARoCHOUDHURY oS/OoSRIoRAMoSWARTHoCHOUDHURY oRAIoBAHADURoLANE oJORHAT oDIST.oJORHATo(ASSAM) oPINo785001o(OWNERoOFoBRo30/B-3439oTRUCK) 3:ACHALALoRAI oS/OoSIPAHIoRAI oFANCYoALI oP.O.oJORHAT oDIST.oJORHATo(ASSAM) oPINo785001o(DRIVERoOFoTHEoTRUCKoVIDEoD/LoNO.oNLo0220010016820o VALIDoUPTOo3.1.201o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMSoDoDoROYo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oMR.oAoJoSAIKIAo(R1)oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/3 ::: PRESENT::: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA For the Appellant : Ms. D.D. Roy, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.J. Saikia, Advocate. Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024. Date of Judgment : 25.07.2024.