NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. C KEILIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Aizawl Branch, is presented on the strength of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the order dated 30.5.2000 passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short M.A.C.T.), in M.A.C.T. Case No. 88 of 1997. (The petition is, however, drafted very exhaustively like that of a petition of appeal). Insofar a question of maintainability of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the law has been well settled by the Full Bench judgment of this court in Milan Rani Saha v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 103 (Gauhati). The court, now, definitely is required to enter into the matter in order to see whether there was any case of miscarriage of justice due to any infirmity, illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned judgment passed by the M.A.C.T.

(2.) The quintessence of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that on the basis of law given by Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala, 2001 ACJ 827 (SC), the Tribunal was not justified in deciding the case by applying section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Moreover, the further contention is that there was no case of dependency in this case as the deceased was niece of the claimant and was not an earning member on the basis of facts on record but the learned Tribunal failed to notice this fact and went from the wrong angle to treat the claim presented by person claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased died in vehicular accident. Lastly, it was contended that under no circumstances as per materials on record the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,52,000 awarded by the Tribunal can be justified.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant C. Keiliana, however, replied by stating that the deceased in this case was a member of the family of the claimant, being the adopted daughter of the claimant. That the petitioner insurer did not pay the 50 per cent amount of award as ordered by this court in time and due to this disobedience to the order of the court alone the petition is liable to be dismissed. (Record shows the 50 per cent award amounting to Rs. 2,12,500 was deposited and paid to claimants on 13.9.2001).