NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. F LALTHANPUII

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 15/2008 vide judgment and award dated 22nd February, 2010 (23rd February, 2010), whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 4,24,500/- has been awarded as compensation for the death of the claimant/Respondent No. 1's son in a motor accident occurred on 9th January, 2008 at about 7-40 PM at Zodin Square in front of Mahatma Gandhi's Statue, involving the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-01/C-9167 (Truck) belonging to the present Respondent No. 2 and the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-04/2275 (motor cycle) belonging to the Respondent No. 3, which was driven by the deceased.

(2.) The claimant/Respondent No. 1 herein filed an application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the death of her son, in the aforesaid motor accident, who was about 20 (twenty) years old and a bachelor. The said application was registered and numbered as MAC Case No. 15/2008. While the Appellant/Insurance Company, on receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed the written statement, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the owners of the truck and the motor cycle, respectively, however, did not enter appearance and contest the said proceeding, despite service of notice, for which, the said proceeding before the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them.

(3.) The claimant/Respondent No. 1, in support of her claim, examined 3 (three) witnesses, namely the claimant herself as C.W. 1, the employer of the deceased, namely R. Sawivela as C.W. 2 and the Investigating Officer, Shri T. Thuamchungnunga as C.W. 3. The claimant has also proved a number of documents including the contract of insurance between the Appellant/Insurance Company and the Respondent No. 2, who is the owner of the offending vehicle (Truck). No witness, however, has been examined by the Appellant/Insurance Company.