LAWS(MEGH)-2019-12-11

LAXMI DEVI SURANA Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Decided On December 11, 2019
Laxmi Devi Surana Appellant
V/S
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals involving the same facts and questions of law are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the appellants as claimants had filed the claim case before the Motor Claim Tribunal, Shillong being MACT Case No. 15 of 2015 and MACT Case No. 16 of 2015 claiming compensation for grievous injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 9.2.2015 at 12th Mile National Highway 40. The appellants were travelling in a Hyundai Eon vehicle bearing Registration Number ML-05K-8477 insured with the respondent No. 1 and 2. The pleaded case of the appellants is that while travelling from Guwahati to Shillong, on reaching the place of occurrence and Mac App. No. 1 of 2018 in order to avoid a head-on collision with a truck coming at high speed from the opposite direction, the driver of the vehicle in which the appellants were travelling suddenly took a sharp turn to the side, and dashed against a stationary truck. The appellants received grievous injuries and the vehicle was badly damaged. The appellants thereafter filed the claim of compensation. The respondents No. 1 and 2 the insurer of the vehicle contested the claim by initially putting a challenge to the maintainability on the ground that the accident was a hit and run case and that the remedy lay before the Solatium Board and not before the MACT Tribunal. The learned Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and the claim was held to be not maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the claim the appellants are before this Court by way of these instant appeals.

(3.) I have heard Ms. P.D. Bujarbarua, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms B. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel for the respondents.