SMT. BINA RANI DEBBARMA Vs. SRI NIHAR DEBBARMA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Smt. Bina Rani Debbarma
Sri Nihar Debbarma
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Having heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the insurer-respondent, I am of the view that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by remanding the case to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura, for fresh hearing on the quantum of compensation payable to the appellants.
(2.) The facts material for disposal of the appeal may briefly be noticed at the outset. The case of the appellants is that on 10-11-2010 at about 5 AM, when the deceased (Dilip Debbarma) was proceeding along Mohanpur-Sonaibazar Road on foot, he was knocked down by the speeding vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01C-3487 at a place adjacent to the house of one Binoy Debbarma near a school causing him serious injuries. He was shifted to Mohanpur PHC by the local people, but he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. One Sunil Debbarma lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Sidhai Police Station, and the same was registered as Sidhai PS Case no. 104/2010 Us 279/304-A IPC in connection with the said vehicular accident. The offending vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. and the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident. The deceased is survived by his wife (appellant No. 1) and his two sons and his father (Manik Lal Debbarma), who died during the pendency of the claim petition. The claimant No. 3, who is the son of the deceased, also died during the pendency of the claim petition. The names of the two deceased were accordingly struck of as the claimants in the case. The deceased was 45 years old at the time of the accident and was dealing with the wholesale business of fish, rubber and bamboo and had a piggery, agricultural land, piscicultural pond and poultry farm, etc. He had an income of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The original claimants filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.
(3.) The claim petition was resisted by the owner of the vehicle and the insurer by filing their respective written statements. The owner of the vehicle neither denied nor accepted the case of the appellants and they are put to strict proof. He, however, asserted that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving license and that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. The stance taken by the insurer, however, is that there was no vehicular accident on 10-11-2010 which resulted in the death of the deceased, and the appellants were put to strict proof thereof. The insurer also denied the age, the income, vocation and health condition of the deceased at the time of the alleged accident. The insurer also claimed that it was not aware of the registration of a criminal case in connection with such accident. It is asserted by the insurer that the insured in collusion with the appellants did not report the accident U/s 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act with a view to cause loss to it. According to the insurer, the burden of proof was on the appellant to show that the vehicle was insured with it and that the driver was having a valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident. These are the sum and substance of the case of the insurer-respondent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.