AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hear Mr. S K Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D.S. Deka, learned counsel representing the respondents.
This is an appeal under Section 173 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the MACT,
Kamrup in MAC Case No. 95/2001.
On 05.12.2000, the vehicle bearing Registration No. NL-05A-2228 lost control at Deoupani and hit a nearby tree and after that the vehicle turned
turtle. The claimant was the handyman of the said vehicle and because of the accident, he sustained serious injuries. Those injuries made in 55%
physically disable.
A claim petition for compensation was filed before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company had contested the claim by filing a written statement. The
Insurance Company contended that there is a violation of the policy condition and, therefore, the aforesaid claim for compensation was not
maintainable. The Insurance Company has clarified that a handyman was not covered by the connected policy.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed three issues as follows:
(i) Whether there was any accident on 05.12.2000 involving the vehicle No. NL-05A-2228 (truck) and whether the claimant suffered any injury out of
the alleged accident, if any, what is the nature and extent of the injury?
(ii) Whether the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and not working as a handyman of the vehicle at the relevant time of alleged accident?
(iii) Whether there was violation of specified condition of the policy of insurance and the O.P. no. 1, insurance company has no liability to indemnify
the owner of the vehicle?
At the time of hearing, the claimant examined himself only as his request. He exhibited some documents also. The Insurance Company did not
adduce any evidence.
I have carefully gone through the evidence as well as the documents.
Ext. A is the copy of the insurance policy submitted by the claimant. The policy was valid on the day of the accident. The vehicle NL-05A-2228
belonged to M/s Gammon India Limited. The said police covered the paid driver and workman no. 2.
From the evidence on record, it transpires that the claimant was travelling on the back of the truck. He was not sitting inside the cabin meant for a
handyman. It is a settled position of law that gratuitous passengers are not entitled to compensation.
The learned Tribunal, though held that there was not violation of policy condition, but no reasons have been given in support of their claim.
This appeal pertains to a motor accident that took place 21 years ago. Motor Accident Claims Tribunals were established for early disposal of the
claim cases because the provisions relating to payment of compensation in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are beneficial legislation. Long pendency of
claim cases is against the natural justice. Therefore, I have decided that this litigation should reach its conclusion as soon as possible.
Now, after 21 years this Court is not interested to interfere with the views taken by the Tribunal. There is a violation of the policy condition. In
spite of that, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimant and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the
said compensation from the owner of the said vehicle. While paying the compensation the Insurance Company shall have also the liberty to adjust the
statutory deposit.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands closed.