GUWAHATI, India, June 17 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 19:

1. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. T. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') challenging the judgment and award dated 05.01.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia (for short 'the learned Tribunal') in MACT Case No.107/2006.

3. The grounds of objection taken in the instant appeal primarily is that the learned Tribunal had made an award in favour of the claimants which is not based upon the evidence. Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in terms with Section 168 of the Act of 1988, what a claimant would be entitled to should be the just and fair compensation but not a compensation which has no reasonable basis. The learned counsel therefore submitted that this is a case where the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount which is whether fair or reasonable for which interference is required.

4. Taking into account the said grounds of objection which pertains to the quantum arrived at by the learned Tribunal, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

5. On 24.08.2004 at around 11:30 A.M., the daughter of the claimants namely Smti Sikha Moni Baruah was proceeding in a rickshaw with her friend Smti Banti Suner. Suddenly, one truck bearing Registration No. AS-E-6981 driven in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the rickshaw on the A.T. Road near Sweet India Hotel which resulted in inflicting severe injuries on the face and other body parts of the daughter of the claimants. Immediately, the daughter of the claimants was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Tinsukia but due to seriousness, she was shifted to Aditya Nursing Home, Dibrugarh. Thereupon, she was referred to Sir Gangaram Hospital, Delhi where she received her treatment. Immediately, after the accident, a case was also registered being Tinsukia P.S. Case No.355/04 under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle.

6. It is pertinent herein to mention that at that relevant point of time when the accident happened, the daughter of the claimants was a student pursuing her Bachelor in Arts. The claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.19,78,797/-. Pursuant thereto, the appellant herein who was the opposite party No.3 in the claim proceedings filed its written statement wherein general defences were taken. It was also stated that the claim was without any basis and excessive and as such, liable to be dismissed. The owner of the offending truck also filed a written statement wherein he had denied the claims on the ground of being vague, incomplete and did not contain all material particulars. At the time when the accident had taken place, the truck in question was insured with the appellant Insurance Company which was valid from 22.01.2004 to 21.01.2005.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed three issues which are reproduced herein under:

"(i) Whether a motor vehicle accident took place on 24.08.04 involving vehicle No.AS-E-6981 (Truck)?

(ii) Whether the injured (claimants' daughter) sustained injuries in the accident? If so, to what extent?

(iii) Is the claimant entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?"

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrHqpBjTRpjgyBrk0MohgfDQNsZIJIs5Fxk3gt556E2t3&caseno=MACApp./413/2018&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010063092018&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.