ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs Ranu Das And Ors

Heard Mr. Rajib Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. In the present appeal, the appellant-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited has challenged the judgment and award dated 09.09.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.4, West Tripura Judicial District in connection with case No.T.S.(MAC) 45 of 2013.

By the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation and fasten the liability upon the two vehicles, one is Bus and another is Truck. Both the vehicles were having valid insurance coverage at the time of accident. The accident had occurred on 10.02.2012 near Eco-Park, Baramura Hills on Agartala-Teliamura road allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicles bearing No.TR.03-1351(Bus) and TR01-E-1605(Truck). Out of the said accident one Sefali Das had expired. Due to the death of Sefali Das, her legal heirs namely, Smt. Ranu Das(Deb) and Smt. Tapati Das(Debnath) filed an application claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. The owners of both the vehicles and respective Insurance Companies were impleaded as parties in the claim application. On receipt of the summons, both the owners as well as the Insurance Companies filed their respective written statement. Issues were framed. Parties to the lis had adduced their respective evidences. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record as adduced by the parties had awarded a sum of Rs.32,19,896/- and fasten the liability upon the two Insurance Companies.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment as aforestated, one of the Insurance Companies, namely, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Company") had preferred the present appeal. At the time of admission of the appeal, Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in connection with the accident a criminal case was registered and in course of investigation it was revealed by the investigating officer that the bus bearing No. TR.03-1351 was responsible behind the cause of the said accident. He relied on an observation made by the investigating officer of the criminal case which is reflected in the memorandum of appeal and is reproduced here under:-

"During investigating no sufficient evidence has been established against the driver of TR-01-E-1605(Truck) Sri. Pusna Charai S/o Lt. Buttalal Charai of Damcherra, P/S-Damcherra, P.O. Damcherra. So, may kindly be discharged him from liability of offence."

On the basis of such observation, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the fixing liability to pay 50 per cent of the compensation amount upon the appellant as determined by the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.

According to Mr. Saha, learned counsel, the learned Tribunal ought to have fastened the entire liability upon respondent No.5, i.e., the insurer of the owner of the Bus. I repel the submission of the learned counsel. The Supreme Court in the long line of decisions has held that the investigation report in connection with the criminal case cannot form the basis of making award in all cases. It is the duty of the Tribunal to enquire into the factum of the accident independently on the basis of the evidence and materials placed in course of such proceeding.

In the instant case, the insurance companies and the owners had filed their respective written statements. The owner of the offending vehicles had adduced evidence, and brought all the materials before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence and all the materials on record had held that both the vehicles were involved in the accident and also equally responsible for the cause of the death of the deceased-Sefali Das.

Having observed thus, and the reasons discussed here-in-above, the judgment dated 09.09.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in T.S.(MAC) 45 of 2013 does not call for interference and therefore, I decline to admit this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed at this stage being devoid of merit.

Consequently, the judgment and award as aforestated is upheld and affirmed.