LAWS(GAU)-2001-4-1

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BENU CHANDRA DEB

Decided On April 02, 2001
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., AGARTALA Appellant
V/S
BENU CHANDRA DEB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the aforsaid Civil Revision No. 64/99, the petitioner challenged the order dated 3-7-1999 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil Misc. (Review) No. 107/99 arising out of Title Suit (MAC) No. 357 of 1996 and by Civil Revision No. 65 of 1999, the petitioner challenged the order dated 3-7-1999 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura; Agartala in Civil Misc. (Review) No. 103 of 1999 arising out of Title Suit (MAC) No. 356 of 1996.

(2.) The claimant-respondent filed claim petitions, one in Title Suit (MAC) No. 356/96 and another in Title Suit (MAC) No. 357/96 contending, inter alia, that on 7-8-1996 due to head-in-collision between two vehicles bearing No. TRS 909 (Bus) and TRT 2543 (Jeep) an accicent happened and the claimant-respondents of the aforesaid cases sustained injuries. The learned Tribunal caused inquiry and awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in TS(MAC) No. 357/1996 and Rs. 35,000/- in TS(MAC) No. 356/1996 with 12% interest per annum with effect from 27-8-1996 holding both the vehicles are guilty and the liability of payment of 50% of the awarded amount has been fastened to the petitioner National Insurance Co. Ltd., on the ground that the vehicle TRT-2543(Jeep) was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company at the relevant time.The petitioner Insurance Company took the plea that the vehicle TRT-2543(Jeep) was not insured with it at the relevant time.

(3.) After the award was made, the petitioner made petitions seeking review/ recall of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal imposing 50% liability upon the petitioner and the review petitions were registered vide No. Civil Misc. (Review) 103/99 and Civil Misc. (Review) 107/99. The petitioner submitted the copies of the two insurance policies showing that on the relevant date there was no valid insurance policy and as such the petitioner sought for review of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal.