NEMAI CHANDRA SAHA Vs. DILIP DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 02.08.2001 as passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala on the ground that the Tribunal has committed gross illegality by saddling liability of payment of the awarded compensation on the owner of the vehicle, the appellant herein. The claim was filed by the respondent No. 1 as he had received serious injuries in the accident occurred on 07.09.1995 infront of the Khowai Hospital at Khowai while he was coming from his house by his scoter with a very slow and controllable speed treading the extreme left side of the road. When he reached infront of the hospital, the vehicle owned by the appellant herein bearing registration No. TRT-2867(Jeep) having been driven rashly and negligently dashed him. As a result he was seriously injured and was immediately brought to the Khowai hospital and thereafter he was referred to the G.B.P. Hospital at Agartala. He was treated as the indoor patient in the G B.P. Hospital from 07.09.1995 to 19.09.1995. Thereafter he continued his treatment as the outdoor patient for several months.

(2.) Even though the respondent No. 1 claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 51,40,000/- but on scrutiny of the evidence the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 05.06.1996, date of filing of the claim petition with a direction on the appellant to pay the said amount within a period of three months from that date.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 did not file any cross objection or parallel appeal against the said award. However, the appellant being the owner of the offending vehicle (Jeep) filed this appeal on the said solitary ground. It was contended that the claimant-respondent No. 1 did not make the insurer a party. As a result, such anomaly in the judgment and award could take place. This contention is straightway rejected by this Court. It is always the duty of the owner of the offending vehicle to disclose the policy materials including the name of the insurer to the Tribunal either in the written statement or by filing a separate application. Thereafter the Tribunal may either implead the insurer as a party or may apprise of such claim by way of a notice. By the order dated 05.07.2012 as assessed separately in exercise of the power under Section 165 of the Evidence Act this Court accepted the Insurance Policy as submitted by the National Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 2 in the evidence. It evinces from the said Insurance Policy that the same was valid on the date of accident as the said policy No. 203000/95/03222 had the validity for the period from 04.08.1995 to 03.08.1996 and the accident occurred on 07.09.1995, within the period of coverage. By the communication dated 18.04.2012, the Insurance Company has also confirmed that the vehicle was duly insured w.e.f. 04.08.1995 to 03.08.1996 against the policy as stated.