AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel, for the appellants Mr. H.K. Das. Also heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (the
United India Insurance Company Ltd.). None appears for the respondent No.2.
The appellants herein preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Kamrup at Guwahati, praying for compensation under
Section 163 of the M.V. Act, 1988, which was registered as MAC Case No.294/2010.
The present two appellants are the parents of deceased Jiten Medhi who was the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.AS-14/C2263. On
28.11.2009, at about 10 P.M., while said Jiten Medhi was driving the tractor, near Sathikuchi Kul Bilpare Chupa, the vehicle met with an accident. As
a result of which, the son of the appellants died on the spot. After the said incident, the present appellants preferred the aforesaid claim petition and
accordingly, notice was issued to the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle.
Both the respondents contested the claim by filing their written statement. The owner of thevehicle although admitted about the ownership of the
tractor but denied the knowledge of the accident caused by the vehicle. On the other hand, the Insurance Company/respondent No.1, as usual denied
the incident and pleaded that the case is not maintainable, as against the insurer.
On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that theclaimants have filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of
the M.V. Act, whereas the income of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, having monthly income of Rs.6,000/- per month.
Accordingly, it was held that the income of the deceased was more than what has been stipulated under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and as such
the petition is not maintainable and hence, dismissed the petition.
Carrying the grievances against the dismissal without redressing the grievance of theappellants, the present Appeal has been preferred on the
ground that the Tribunal could have addressed the issue in proper perspective of law and facts.
The learned counsel for the appellants, by referring to a decision of our High Court, reported in2016 (2) GLT 862 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Purnima Singha and others), it has been submitted that the matter in hand is squarely covered under the said case law. Reference has also been
made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2004) 5
SCC 385, wherein the Supreme Court held that by giving purposive construction of a statute, a liberal interpretation can be given while extending
benefit under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, being a beneficial legislation.
I have gone through the observation made in the aforesaid case laws.
The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has pointed out another aspect of the casethat in fact the aforesaid claim petition was only under
Section 163 of the M.V. Act, which provides for a scheme for payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor accident. This is altogether a
different provision. But the said petition was not filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and the learned Tribunal has decided the matter in a
wrong notion.Â
On due consideration of the matters on record and perusal of the LCR, there appears muchsubstance in the submission of the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company. Indeed the said claim petition was filed under Section 163 read with Section 140 of the M.V. Act and the learned Tribunal
has decided the petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act also. That being so, the whole proceeding is vitiated and rendering the judgment is a
nullity, which calls for interference.
It is needless to say that such a beneficial legislation has been enacted to redress the grievanceof the litigants who are basically poor people,
coming to the Court for helping hand, for the death of the earning member of the family. The observation of the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni
(Supra) is worth mentioning. The learned Tribunal should apprise themselves about the dictum given by the Apex Court.
Taking note of the above, without discussing the case on merit, the impugned order dated8.7.2014, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati, in the MAC Case No.294/2010 is set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the
learned Tribunal, to decide the matter afresh by giving opportunity to both sides to place their matter.
Further the appellant may also given an opportunity to amend the petition as per law, if so advised.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the Court, to receive further order on 10.8.2018.
The appeal stands allowed accordingly. Return the LCR forthwith.