IN THE COURT OF MEMBER, M.A.C.T. ::: MORIGAON
M.A.C Case No.163/2010
U/S 166 M.V. Act
Present :- Md. I. Hussain
Member, M.A.C.T.,
Morigaon.
Petitioners :- 1. Mustt. Jamina Khatun,
W/O Late Kuddus Ali,
2. Md. Mahar Uddin,
S/O Late Kuddus Ali,
3. Md. Samiruddin (Minor),
S /O Late Kuddus Ali,
4. Md. Jahirul Islam, (Minor),
S/O Late Kuddus Ali,
All are resident of Vill. Kathani,
P.S. Laharighat, Dist. Morigaon
Vs
Opp. Party :- 1. Shri Tapan Medhi,
S/O Late Amrit Medhi,
Vill. – Salana, P.S. Khetri,
Dist. Kamrup (Assam)
(Owner of vehicle No. AS-01-CC-0596 (Tractor)
2. Divisional Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
G. S. Road,
Guwahati, Kamrup (Assam).
(Insurer of vehicle No. AS-01-CC-0596 (Tractor)
Appearance of the Parties
Advocate for Claimant
:- Mr. A. Ahmed, Advocate.
Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 :- Mr. U. C. Roy, Advocate.
Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 :- Mr. K. Medhi, Advocate.
Date of Evidence
:- 02.05.2014,
Date of Argument
:- 28.04.2015.
Date of Judgment
:- 02.05.2015.
JUDGMENT
1. This claim case has arisen on the petition No. 2685 dated 04.12.2010, filed by
Mustt. Jamina Khatun and three others, under section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, praying to
grant compensation due to death of their husband/father in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The fact of the accident as revealed from the claim petition, in brief, is that on
22.04.2010 at about 11.30 P.M., while their father/husband was coming from Laharighat
Chariali towards his residence, then suddenly, the tractor bearing registration No. AS-01-CC0596 coming from same direction in rash and negligent manner knocked him from his back
side, on the PWD road at Chenimari under Laharighat P.S. As a result, the father/husband of
the claimants, Kuddus Ali sustained grievous crush injury on his body and died after half an
hour of the accident. The post mortem examination was done at Morigaon Civil Hospital. As per
the claimants, their deceased husband/father was a vegetable shopkeeper and earned Rs.
6,000/- per month and was 45 years of age at the time of his death.
3. Claimants further state that in this connection, Laharighat P.S. G.D. Entry No.
440 dated 22.04.2010 was made. The vehicle was insured with the Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd. vide Policy No.1505792343002060 and valid up to 26.08.2010. The claimant now claim
Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs) as compensation.
4. On receipt of the notice, both the opposite parties appeared and filed written
statements. Opposite party No. 1, impleaded as registered owner of the offending tractor
bearing registration No. AS-01-CC-0596 by filing written statement, besides raising the usual
legal pleas and denying the material particulars, as raised in the claim petition, has inter-alia
specifically pleaded that the said vehicle was duly insured with the Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd. vide policy No. 1505792343002060, valid up to 26.08.2010 and the said vehicle was
driven by the driver with a valid driving licence and therefore, prays to relieve him from the
payment of compensation, as claimed.
5. On the other hand, opposite Party No. 2, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
in the written statement raised the usual legal pleas and submitted that there is no cause of
action to file the case and denied the contents of the claim petition. It is also submitted that the
claim as made in the claim petition is highly excessive, exorbitant, exaggerated and without any
base. Claimant is put to strict proof of the contents made in the claim petition as regard the
accident took place by the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-CC-0596 (tractor). The
opposite party No. 1 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :
(i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of offending vehicle, in question, Vehicle No. AS-01-CC-0596 (tractor) ?
(ii) Whether the claimant/claimants is/are entitled to get any compensation? If
so, what should be the quantum of the said compensation ?
(iii) Who should be liable to pay the compensation ?
Discussion, Decision & Reasons thereof
7. In this claim case, the claimant No. 1 Mustt. Jamina Khatun has examined
herself as PW-1 and produced a number of documents in support of her claim. She also
examined Md. Omar Ali as PW-2. PWs are not cross-examined by the opposite party. The
documents exhibited by the claimants are marked as Ext. a to Ext. h.
8. I have considered the materials on record carefully and heard the learned
counsel for both sides. My issue wise discussions and findings thereon are as follows :
9. Issue No. 1 :- Claimant Mustt. Jamina Khatun as PW-1, has stated that she
has filed this claim petition along with her children, with a prayer to grant compensation for the
death of their father/husband Kuddus Ali in a motor accident on 22.04.2010 at Chenimari, on
the PWD road under Laharighat P.S. while Kuddus Ali was coming from Laharighat Chariali
towards his residence. All on a sudden, the tractor bearing registration No. AS-01-CC-0596
coming from same direction in rash and negligent manner knocked him from back side, on the
PWD road at Chenimari under Laharighat P.S., as a result, her husband, Kuddus Ali sustained
grievous crush injury on his body and died after half an hour of the accident. The post mortem
examination was done at Morigaon Civil Hospital. Her deceased husband was a vegetable
shopkeeper and earned Rs. 6,000/- per month and was 45 years of age at the time of his
death.
10. PW-1 submitted a number of documents in support of her claim for
compensation. Out of those documents, Ext. b is the accident information report of Laharighat
Police Station. On careful scrutiny of Ext. b, it is found that vide Laharighat P.S. G.D. Entry No.
440 dated 22.04.2010, vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-CC-0596 (tractor) was involved in
a road accident that took place at Chenimari, on the PWD road, on 22.04.2010. At the relevant
point of time, the vehicle was driven by Sri Horilal Chetri, son of Bal Bahadur Chetri and the
owner is Tapan Medhi, son of Late Amrit Medhi of village Salana, P S Khetri in the district of
Kamrup (Assam) and the vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., vide
policy No.1505792343002060. Kuddus Ali, son of Late Yachin Ali of village Kathani, P.S.
Laharighat, Dist. Morigaon sustained grievous crush injury and died after half an hour of the
accident. PW-2 Omar Ali extended support to the evidence of PW-1.
11. Opposite party No. 1, being the owner of the offending vehicle, admitted
about the road accident of the tractor bearing registration No. AS-01-CC-0596 and pleaded in
the written statement that the offending vehicle was driven by the driver, having valid driving
license and valid insurance at the time of accident. It is submitted that vehicle was insured with
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. at the relevant point of time and submitted the photocopy
of the insurance certificate. Opposite party No. 2 denied the fact of accident on 22.04.2010 at
11.30 A.M. at Chenimari, under Laharighat P.S. As the opposite party No. 1 is the owner of the
offending vehicle at the time of the accident and he admitted the fact of accident, and police
also made G.D. Entry vide Laharighat P.S. G.D. Etnry No.440 dated 22.04.2010, so, it can safely
come to the conclusion that a road accident took place on 22.04.2010 at Chenimari, under
Laharighat P.S. at 11.30 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-CC-0596. So, issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.
12. Issue No. 2 :- This issue relates to entitlement of compensation by the
claimant and the quantum of the compensation. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it
transpires that her husband (the deceased) sustained multiple grievous crush injuries on his hip
and back bone and died after half an hour due to accident that took place on 22.04.2010 at
Chenimari, under Laharighat P.S. Post mortem examination on the dead body of her husband
was done at Morigaon Civil Hospital. PW-1 submitted some documents vide Ext. a to h. Out of
which, Ext. a is the post mortem report. Ext.b is the accident information Report (Form No. 54),
Ext. c is the insurance policy, Ext. d is the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle. Ext.
e is the driving licence, Ext. f is the fitness certificate of the vehicle. Ext. g is the payment
receipt and Ext. h is Gaonburah certificate. On perusal of said documents, particularly the Ext.
a, the post mortem report, it is found that the cause of death of the deceased was due to
severe haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries caused by blunt force impact. Evidence of
the claimant and her witness remained intact and cogent as the witnesses were not cross
examined by the opposite parties, though they filed written statement. So, their evidence
reveals that an accident took place on 22.04.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in which husband of the
claimant died.
13. From the above discussion on the evidence of the claimant, it gives rise the
fact that the deceased, the husband of the PW-1 met with an accident on 22.04.2010 at 11.30
A.M. at Chenimari, while he was coming from Laharighat Chariali to his residence. The accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and as a result,
the father/husband of the claimants died on the and post mortem examination on the dead
body of the deceased was done at Morigaon Civil Hospital. Aforesaid evidence of PW-1
remained intact and cogent, as opposite party failed to rebut the evidence by cross
examination, which inspires confidence that the accident of the offending vehicle, took place on
22.04.2010 at about 11.30 A.M. at Chenimari, on the PWD road due to rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle and the husband of the claimant Jamira Khatun died after half an hour of
the accident and post mortem examination on the dead body was done at Morigaon Civil
Hospital. As the father/husband of the claimants died in a Road Traffic Accident, so, I am of the
opinion that the claimants are entitled to get compensation.
14. Now, it is required to be decided what will be the quantum of compensation.
PW-1 Mustt. Jamina Khatun in her evidence as well as in the claim petition categorically stated
that her deceased husband was a vegetable shopkeeper. In the claim petition as well as in
evidence, claimants stated that the deceased Kuddus Ali earned Rs. 6,000/ per month, from his
business and in support of said contention, claimant submitted Ext. h, certificate issued by
President/Secretary, Laharighat Circle Gaonbura. On perusal of Ext. h, it is found that the
certificate was issued by President/Secretary, Laharighat Circle, Gaonbura. It reveals that
Kuddus Ali died due to accident of sand loaded truck. Claimant stated in her claim petition as
well as evidence that the accident took place by a tractor. So, the Ext. h cannot be considered
to ascertain the income of the deceased as the time of his death. However, considering all the
aspects, monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 3000/ and yearly income would be
(Rs. 3000/ x 12) = Rs. 36,000/
15. To find out the quantum of the compensation, as per Sarala Verma case, the
age of the deceased is required. But the claimant failed to submit any document in support of
the age of the deceased at the time of accident. It is stated in the petition that deceased was
45 years at the time of accident. In Ext. a, post mortem report, age of the deceased has been
mentioned as 45 years. As the claimant failed to submit any authentic document in support of
the age of the deceased, so, age of the deceased is held in between 46 to 50 years at the time
of death. Considering the age of the deceased as per SaralaVerma’s case; (2009) 6 SCC
121, the proper multiplier will be 13 as the age of the deceased at the time death is held in
between 46 to 50 years. Thus, his income comes to (Rs. 3,000.00 x 12 x 13) = Rs.
4,68,000.00/. It is stated that deceased left behind his wife and three children at the time of his
death. So, deduction for personal and living expenses will be 1/4 as per Sarala Verma’s case
(supra) and the amount of dependency comes to Rs. 3,51,000/
16. In view of the above calculation, the claimant is entitled to get compensation
as follows :
(a) Dependancy
: Rs. 3,51,000.00
(b) Funeral expenses
: Rs.
(c) Conveyance
: Rs.
5,000.00
5,000.00
(d) Consortium
: Rs.
10.000.00
(e) loss of estate
: Rs.
10,000.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Total
: Rs. 3,81,000.00
(Rupees three lakhs eighty one thousand) only. Issue No. 2 is decided
accordingly.
17. Issue No. 3 :- From the above discussion and the decision of Issue No. 1,
we have found that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-CC-0596 (tractor) was
insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., the opposite party No. 2, vide policy
No.1505792343002060 which was valid up to 26.08.2010. The accident was occurred on
22.04.2010 and hence the insurance of the offending vehicle was within the validity period of
the insurance policy. It is pertinent to mention here that the said insurance company has
admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with them. In such a situation and as the
opposite party No. 2 failed to rebut the fact by cross examining the claimant, I am of the
considered opinion that the opposite party No. 2, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., is liable
to pay the above compensation under the law. Issue No. 3 is decided accordingly.
ORDER
18. In the light of the above discussions and the decisions arrived at, the claim of
the claimants, namely Mustt. Jamina Khatun and three others is allowed on contest for an
award of Rs. 3,81,000.00 (Rupees three lakhs eighty one thousand) only. It transpires from the
record that the affidavit annexed with the claim petition does not bear the declaration that no
other claim case is filed in any other Tribunal or Authority. So, it is directed that the claimant
shall submit an Affidavit to that effect within 30 (thirty) days, from the date of this award. The
opposite party No. 2, i.e. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay the said amount
within 90 (ninety) days from the date of submission of the said Affidavit by the claimant with a
simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 01.12.2010 i.e. the date of filing of the case, subject to
adjustment of any amount, already paid in favour of the claimants. Opposite party No. 2 be
informed immediately to pay the compensation, on receipt of the affidavit from the claimant as
directed above. In the event of failure to pay the awarded amount within time, as directed
above, an additional interest @ 9% will be levied from the date of passing this order, payable
by the opposite party No. 2. Similarly, claimants cannot claim interest for the delayed period, if
they submit the Affidavit after expiry of the prescribed period. It appears from the claim petition
that Claimant No.3 and 4, namely Md. Samiruddin and Md. Jahirul Islam are two minor sons of
the deceased left behind at the time of his death. So, an amount of Rs. 75,000/ (Rs. Seventy
five thousand) each be kept in a Nationalized Bank as fixed deposit in the name of the two
minors till attainment of their majority for their future welfare. Office will take note of the
matter accordingly.
19. A copy of the Judgment and order be sent to the opposite party No. 2 to do
the needful at their end, in the light of the directions passed in this judgment and order.
Judgment is delivered in the open Court on this 2nd day of May, 2015 under my
hand and seal.
Dictated and corrected by me
Member, MACT
Morigaon.
APPENDIX
A. Claimant’s witness
1. PW-1 :- Mustt. Jamina Khatun,
2. PW-2 :- Md. Omar Ali.
B. Claimant’s exhibit
1. Ext. a is the post mortem report.
2. Ext. b is the accident information report.
3. Ext.c is the photocopy of insurance policy.
4. Ext.d is the R/C of the offending vehicle.
5. Ext.e is the photo copy of Driving license
6. Ext.f is the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle.
7. Ext.g is the payment receipt.
C. Opposite Party’s & Exhibit : Nil.