AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.L. Yadav for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
This appeal is by the Insurance Co., against the judgment and award dated 14-09-2012 passed by MACT, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, in MAC Case
No. 109/2009.
The brief facts of the case are that the claimant Subodh Dhar was proceeding fromNagaon to Hojai on 06-07-2007, by driving an Alto car. The
offending vehicle bearing registration No. NL-01-A/5053, which was coming from the opposite direction, hit the car driven by the claimant from front
side at a place near Sideswar mandir. It was also stated in the claim petition, that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver. As a result of the accident, the claimant Subodh Dhar sustained grievous injuries and he filed an application for
compensation before the MACT at Hojai. Learned tribunal by the impugned judgment, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/- with interest @ 8%
in favour of the claimant.
Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Co. preferred the instant appeal.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. submits, that the accident occurred solely, dueto fault of the claimant himself, as he was driving the vehicle
in an inebriated condition and the Insurance Co. also adduced evidence to that effect. However, learned tribunal did not take into consideration the
evidence adduced by the Insurance Co. and saddled the responsibility with the appellant Insurance Co. being the insurer of the offending vehicle to
satisfy the award.
Per contra, learned counsel Mr. R.L. Yadav submits, that no admissible evidence couldbe adduced by the Insurance Co. to substantiate its plea,
that the claimant was responsible for the accident, and as such, learned tribunal rightly awarded the compensation fixing responsibility on the appellant
Insurance Co. being the insurer of the offending vehicle, to satisfy the award. Claimant in order to substantiate his claim examining himself on oath,
deposed, that while he was proceeding by driving his car, noticing the offending vehicle, gave signal. But the driver of the offending vehicle, ignoring
the signal, collided with the vehicle of the claimant, causing injury to him as well as damage to his vehicle. During cross examination, except putting a
suggestion, that the accident occurred due to his fault, nothing was elicited to impeach the evidence of the claimant, that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
The owner and driver of the offending vehicle contested the claim by filing writtenstatement, but neither the owner nor even the driver, who had
personal knowledge about the occurrence, denied the factum of accident and that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the offending vehicle. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle also did not come to the witness box to controvert the pleadings and
evidence of the claimant, that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. Thus, the evidence of
the claimant, who was an eye witness to the occurrence remained unimpeached and uncontroverted. The appellant Insurance Co. relying on the
testimony of DW 1, a police officer, sought to impress upon this Court, that accident occurred due to fault of the claimant, who was in an inebriated
condition at the time of the accident.
The DW 1, was admittedly not an eye witness of the occurrence. The DW 1 deposed,that he came to know from the people of the locality that
claimant was heavily drunk at the time of accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant. Whatever DW 1 stated
before the tribunal was admittedly not from his personal knowledge and purportedly from the information gathered from other people. However, none
of the person from whom he stated to have come to know about the occurrence was examined. This being the position, the entire evidence of DW 1
appears to be hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. Besides, the oral testimony of the DW 1, which was evidently a hearsay piece of evidence, no
other evidence was adduced to substantiate the plea raised by the Insurance Co., that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the
claimant. On the contrary, the claimant, who was an eye witness to the occurrence, have candidly deposed, substantiating the averment made in the
claim petition, that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, and such evidence remained
uncontroverted. Therefore, learned tribunal rejected the testimony of the DW 1, and rightly so, as the evidence of DW 1 was totally inadmissible for
being hearsay.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the learnedtribunal, that the accident occurred solely due to rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, and awarding compensation on the basis of such finding, cannot be faulted. Since the appeal
was based on the sole question, that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident and the evidence on record having clearly established, that
the accident occurred due to fault of the driver of the offending vehicle, the appeal filed by the Insurance Co. appears to be devoid of merit, inasmuch
as, there was no dispute that the claimant sustained injury in the accident and the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed.
The Insurance Co. shall satisfy the award by depositing the same with the tribunalwithin six weeks.
Statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the Insurance Co. be returned.Â