ZADINGLIANA Vs. THAKUR CHAND
LAWS(GAU)-2018-6-171
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 19,2018

Zadingliana Appellant
VERSUS
THAKUR CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. S. Pradhan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Lalnunpuia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appears for the respondent No. 1 despite notice.
(2.) This is an appeal against the JudgmentAward dated 28.07.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 15/2015 whereby, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl (the Tribunal) has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,70,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 16.03.2015 to the claimant/appellant.
(3.) The appellant was also the claimant before the Tribunal and he filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) claiming compensation for the death of his son Sh. Lalfakzuala, who was aged 29 years due to a vehicular accident on 30.01.2015, while he was proceeding from West Phaileng to Dampa Rengpui in Mizoram. The appellant's son was travelling in an Ashok Layland Truck bearing Registration No. HP35-2528 driven by one Gopal Singh. The accident happened when there was a sudden leakage of gas from the LPG gas cylinder kept inside the cabin of the Truck. The appellant's son fearing explosion of the cylinder due to the leakage of gas jumped out of the Truck but he unfortunately tumbled on the road and was run over by the rear tyres of the Truck. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre in West Phaileng but he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. He was employed by one Sh. Lalbiakliana as a Driver and he was paid a monthly salary of 10,000/-. The Truck was ensured with the respondent No. 2 at the time of the accident and the Driver was holding a valid driving license. The learned Tribunal came to a finding that the accident occurred due to equal contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the Driver of the Truck. The learned Tribunal also held that the Driver of the Truck was without a valid license and therefore, the respondent No. 1 who is the owner of the Truck was made liable to pay the awarded compensation, while the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company was completely exonerated from any liability.;


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