MILAN DEBBARMA Vs. BISWAKANYA DEBBARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S.B. Debnath, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appears for the respondent No. 1. The appellants by filing the instant appeal have challenged the judgment and award dated 28.5.2011 passed by the learned Member, MACT, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal in short) seeking enhancement of the award.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Sita Laxmi Debbarma, wife of the appellant No. 1 Shri Milan Debbarma and mother of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 died due to a motor accident which took place on 28.9.2009 at around 9.45 a.m. at 18 Card area on the way of Champaknagar to Jampaijala road the vehicle suddenly capsized due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The deceased was aged 37 years at the time of her death. She worked as a tailoring master and used to earn Rs. 7,000/- p.m. In the accident the vehicle bearing registration No. TR 01-A 2900 (Commander Jeep) got turtled.

(3.) The O. P. No. 1 owner of the vehicle filed written objection denying the claim and disputing the income of the deceased. In the written objection it was stated that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., the respondent/O.R No. 2, and claimed that the vehicle had all the documents for plying the same. The respondent No. 2, Insurance Company also filed written objection disputing the claim. It also made an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act in short) stating that if the owner did not take all available defences and or abstained from adducing evidence it may be granted the benefit under Section 170 of the M.V. Act to contest the claim on all counts. In the written statement it was asserted that the claim petition was not maintainable inasmuch as it is baseless, highly speculative and exhorbitant. In the written statement the respondent No. 2 denied the profession as well as the income of the deceased.