GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON ANANTA DEKA V/S SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND 2 ORS

GUWAHATI, India, April 15 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on March 13:

1. Heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the appellant/claimant, and Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Insurance Company.

2. The instant appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 10.01.2018 passed by the learned Member, M.A.C.T., Barpeta in MAC case No. 875 of 2015.

3. The facts of the case may be briefly recounted.

4. One Ananta Deka, son of Fulen Deka has filed a petition vide No. 3838/15 dated 15.10.2015 under Sec. 166 read with Sec.140 of M.V. Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident which had allegedly taken place on 14-04-2015 at about 6.15 p.m. on the National Highway near B.H. College, Howly under Howly P.S. with the involvement of two motor vehicles bearing Regd. Nos. AS-15/D-8994 (motor cycle) and AS-01/BQ-1264 (Toyota car).

5. It is alleged that claimant had been pillion riding from Barpeta towards Barpeta Road on a motor cycle bearing registration No. AS-15/D-8994 and the same got hit by a vehicle (Toyota) bearing registration No. AS-01/BQ-1264 which came from the opposite side going from Barpeta Road to Howly in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained serious fracture injuries.

6. The Driver, owner of the alleged offending Toyota car and the insurer of the same had been arrayed as opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. On receipt of notice, opposite party No.3-Insurance Company only appeared in the case and filed its written statement. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) did not contest the case and the case accordingly proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dated 08.11.2016.

7. The O.P No.3 i.e., the SBI General Insurance Company Limited also contested the proceeding by filing written statement with all usual pleas of defence and denied any kind of liability for payment of compensation to the claimant. Although it is stated that the company's liability would be governed by section 147, 148 and 149 (2) of the M.V. Act, no specific statutory defence was taken by the O.P. No.3. It is however, pertinent to mention that O.P. No.3 has contested the proceeding with defence available U/S 170 of the M.V. Act.

8. The learned Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, and hence, the claimant was entitled to due compensation, and the liability for the same lies with the Insurance Company.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrH6B%2FNpPbs0kWum%2BCM6WPvbzRTRWfZzWwnVe%2B7bVsOJq&caseno=MACApp./648/2018&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010094012018&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.