UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MANTOJ TANTI S/O SRI TARILI TANTI AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Mantoj Tanti S/O Sri Tarili Tanti And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
MR.KALYAN RAI SURANA,J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondents No. 1 to 3 although notices have been duly served, as such, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the said respondents.
(2.) This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MV Act") is preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.07.2010, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sivasagar in MAC Case No. 31/2008, by which a compensation of Rs. 5,98,900/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization and also cost of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded in favour of the respondent No. 1.
(3.) The case of the respondent No. 1 in brief is that he was working as a handyman of a truck bearing Registration No. AS-04-E-0229. On 09.12.2007 at about 6.30 pm, the respondent No. 3, namely, Binod Singh, who was driving the truck at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, destroyed a police barricade on NH 37 near Dehanpur Gaon under Teok P.S., District Jorhat and then dashed the truck against a tree. As a result of the accident, the respondent No. 1 suffered multiple injuries and he was taken to Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh. After undergoing a prolonged treatment, both his legs were amputated on 19.12.2007 and he was discharged on 26.03.2008. Hence, the respondent No. 1 prayed for compensation of Rs. 27,94,904/- together with interest @ 15% per annum. The appellant as well as the respondents No. 2 and 3 had contested the claim by filing their written statement. The respondent No. 2, Sunita Devi Singh, the owner of the offending truck admitted the accident and the employment of the respondent No. 1 and prayed for exonerating her as her vehicle was insured under "Package Policy" which was valid at the time of the accident. The respondent No. 3, driver of the vehicle, in his written statement disclosed that the driving licence was valid at the time of the accident. However, he denied that the vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. He admitted that the respondent No. 1 was having a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- per month and daily allowance of Rs. 50/-. The appellant in their written statement, by taking usual pleas, put the respondent No. 1 to strict proof of their claim and contested the claim on the ground that the claim was unreasonable.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.