UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KANCHAN LASKAR
LAWS(TRIP)-2017-11-1
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on November 07,2017

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
Kanchan Laskar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T. Vaiphei, J. - (1.) The appellant-insurer in this appeal is questioning the legality of the judgment dated 24-4-2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in TS (MAC) No. 412 of 2013 awarding a compensation of Rs. 26,98,024/- in favour of the claimant-respondents.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that in the morning of 4-6-2012 while the deceased Nirmal Ch. Laskar was riding in a Maruti Van bearing registration No. TR-01-F-0397 belonging to his relative/friend, the driver of the Van, while taking a turn, lost his control of the van and dashed against a big tree. Due to the jerking, the left door of the said vehicle opened whereupon the deceased (Nirmal Ch. Laskar) fell down on the road and came to sustain grievous injuries on his person. The deceased was immediately shifted to the BRAM Hospital, Hapania by the local people. Ultimately, he succumbed to his injuries on 12-8-2012 at Peerless Hospital, Kolkata where he was last referred to for better treatment. The deceased is survived by his wife and his two sons, who are the claimant-respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 respectively. The claimants through the respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,34,456/-. The deceased was 55 years old and was serving as Inspector in the Agricultural Department, Government of Tripura earning a sum of Rs. 27,974/- per month at the time of his death.
(3.) The claim petition was contested by the owner of the Maruti Van and the appellant-insurer by filing their respective written statements. The owner of the vehicle (respondent No. 2 herein) in his written statement took the stance that there was no rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, but even if there is any liability to pay the compensation, it is the appellant-insurer, with which the vehicle was insured, which is liable to satisfy the award. In any case, the respondent No. 2 contended that the compensation so claimed is excessive and without any legal basis. He, however, admitted that the deceased died in the vehicular accident as alleged by the claimant-respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.