AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company Limited challenging the judgment and award dated 21.02.2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. T.S. (MAC) 44 of 2022, with the following reliefs:
a)Admit the instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 21.02.2026 passed by the Ld. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, West Tripura Judicial District, Agartala, in Case No. T.S.(MAC) 44 of 2022;
b)Issue notice upon the respondents;
c)Call for the records of T.S. (MAC) 44 of 2022 from the file of the L'd Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, West Tripura Judicial District, Agartala;
d)After hearing, allow the instant Appeal by modifying the impugned Award, passed by the L'd Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, West Tripura Judicial District, Agartala, in Case No. T.S. (MAC) - 44 of 2022, to the effect, that, the Appellant Insurance Company may be directed to satisfy the 50% of the awarded amount of compensation subject to liberty of pay & recovery of the same from the owner of the Motor Cycle bearing No. TR-01-AA-6210.”
Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent.
Briefly stated, the claimant-respondent have filed a claim petition for the death of deceased Nagendra Debnath who on 13.09.2021 at about 09.15 am was trying to board an auto rickshaw at Koroiban area on National Highway, at that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. TR-01-AA-6210 coming towards Jirania from Agartala being driven rash and negligently suddenly lost its control and dashed the victim resulting which he sustained grievous bleeding injuries on his person. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to hospital for treatment and was also referred outside the Stage for proper treatment, but while he was about to shift to Kolkata he felt sick and was admitted in AGMC & GBP hospital and ultimately on 23.09.2021, he succumbed to his injuries. On receipt of the claim application, the appellant-insurance company as well as the owner of the vehicle by filing their respective written statements contested the claim application. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined and the documents, submitted by parties to the claim petition were also taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. Following the settled principles of law, the learned Tribunal has quantified the compensation to be paid to the claimant-respondent to the tune of Rs. 14,26,897/- along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual realization with some stipulations. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said judgment and award dated 21.02.2026 passed by the learned Tribunal in T.S. (MAC) 44 of 2022, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company has argued that the amount of compensation has been wrongly assessed and the liability has been shifted upon the insurance company i.e. the notice. Learned counsel has submitted that this is a case of composite negligence and both the vehicles are equally liable for the accident. Hence, learned counsel has argued for interference of this court into the impugned judgment and award passed by learned tribunal.
I have perused the record including the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
On scrutiny of the record, it is evident that the oral and documentary evidence including the FIR and other police papers established involvement of the offending vehicles in the accident causing death of the victim. On perusal of the judgment, it is observed that the tribunal has opined that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of both the offending vehicles, but while passing the award, the liability has been shifted upon the notice i.e. the appellant herein. The claimant did not make the owner of the auto rickshaw as party in the instant proceeding. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“Now coming to the question of liability, it appears that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of both the offending vehicles. On perusal of the exhibited document, i.e., the charge sheet which is an independent evidence it is found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the drivers of both the vehicles. As such the owners of both the vehicles are liable to make payment of the awarded amount of compensation in equal share. Learned counsel of the claimant petitioner also submitted case law in this regard. The offending Bike appears to be insured with the Noticee vide Ext.D and the policy of insurance was also valid on the day of accident. It follows therefore, the OP Noticee being the insurer of the offending Bike and the owner of offending Auto are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award (50% each).
It is pertinent to be mentioned here that claimant petitioner did not make the owner of Electric Auto Rickckshaw bearing registration No. TR01-H-2639 as party in the instant case. However this tribunal finds that both the owner of vehicle are jointly and severally liable as this is a case of composite negligence and claimant is free to make party any of them. Both the issues accordingly stand answered to the extent as indicated herein above.”
Since both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable towards the accident, the claimant is required to implead the owner and insurance company of the auto rickshaw, the other vehicle involved in the accident, as necessary party to the proceeding. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 21.02.2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. T.S. (MAC) 44 of 2022, is set-aside/quashed. The matter is remanded back to the court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, where the trial court shall consider the same and proceed afresh. It is made clear that the claimant-respondent shall implead owner and insurance company of the auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. TR-01-H-2639 as parties to the proceeding.
Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant-insurance company stands disposed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.