AJAY JAISWAL Vs. MAHADEV DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C.K. Sarma Barua, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. N. Rajkhowa appearing for the appellant, Ajay Jaiswal. Also heard Mr. J. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel for the Claimant-Cross Objector. None appeared for the Insurance Co.

(2.) These two appeals, MAC Appeal No. 82/99 and MAC Appeal No. 83/99, were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) MAC Appeal No. 82/99 has arisen out of Uhe judgment and award dated 16.7.99 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MACT Cass No. 86/96 and MAC Appeal No. 83/ 99 has also arisen out of the judgment and award dated 16.7.99 of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat passed in another case, i.e. MACT Case: No. 37/96. Both these appeals were heard together, although two separate claim petitions were filed by the two claimants, the matter relates to one incident, which occurred on 13.2.1996. Sri Mahadev Debnath, claimant in MACT Case No. 86/96 and his father, Kartick Debnath (since deceased) were travelling in a night-super bus, bearing Registration No. AS-01/D-6401. While the bus reached near Nambar Reserve Forest, some unknown miscreants fired shots, as a result of which, both Kartick Debnath and Mahadev Debnath sustained injuries on their persons. Kartick Debnath died at the spot whereas, Mahadev Debnath sustained severe injuries on his person. The wife of Kartick Debnath, Smt. Mina Debnath, filed MACT Case No. 37/96 claiming compensation for the death of her husband; whereas, Mahadev Debnath claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide two separate orders dated 16.7.99 granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in MACT Case No. 86/96 and a sum of Rs. 1,18,000/- in MACT Case No. 37/96. The Tribunal further held that the National Insurance Co. Ltd. is not liable to pay the compensation and saddled the owner, Ajay Jaiswal, with the liability. Hence the present appeal by the owner of the vehicle. The two claimants have also filed cross-objection stating, inter alia, that the amount of damages awarded, is not just and proper. The cross- objections were also heard along with the appeal.