SAMIR BASU Vs. RAM PROSAD RAJBHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 17th June, 1989 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Calcutta, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, in MACC No.205 of 1981. The appeal has been filed by Shri Samir Basu and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. respectively the owners of the offending vehicle No.WBS-2845 (a private bus) and the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured at the date of accident.

(2.) The claimant/respondent filed MACC Case No.205 of 1981 claiming a compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand) only out of which Rs. 60,000/- (Sixty Thousand) only was assessed for general damages and Rs. 90,000/- (Ninety Thousand) only for special damages stating, inter alia, that

(3.) The claim application was registered before the Claims Tribunal on 30th October, 1981. Before the Claims Tribunal the owner of the offending vehicle, the appellant No.1 in his written statement alleged that the application was barred by the special law of limitation as prescribed under Section 110A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and that the claim was excessive, mala fide, and, therefore, the said owner denied liability to pay the compensation claimed. It was further contended that it was not the bus but the tram was at fault for the accident. The Insurer alleged that claim under Column 22 of the claim application is mala fide, excessive and without any basis and the Insurer denied the liability to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand) only as claimed and it was further stated that if at all there is any liability to make payment of compensation by the Insurer, its liability is limited to the extent as provided for under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further contended that the driver of the alleged offending bus was not rash or negligent while driving and, therefore, the said bus was not, in any way, responsible for the alleged accident rather the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the tram. It was further contended that it was entitled to the protection as are envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act and the conditions and limitations laid down in the policy of insurance issued by the Insurer/appellant.