LAWS(GAU)-2025-1-21

KHALILUR RAHMAN Vs. VIVEK ANAND JHA

Decided On January 09, 2025
KHALILUR RAHMAN Appellant
V/S
Vivek Anand Jha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. K. Goswami learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. None appears for respondent No.1 on call.

(2.) The present appeal preferred under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MV Act, 1988") is directed against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 26/11/2018 passed by the learned Member No.3, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in MAC Case No.2002/2016 for enhancement and modification of compensation award.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that on 28/3/2016 at about 4.30 P.M while the appellant was allegedly waiting on the road side at G.S Road, Khanapara opposite Sani Mandir, he was suddenly hit by a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BV-0635 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle") which was allegedly ridden by its rider in a very rash and negligent manner for which the appellant was grievously injured and was taken by the police to the nearest hospital for treatment. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged and a case was registered under Sec. 279/338 of IPC against the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal which after hearing, the Tribunal by judgment and order dtd. 26/11/2018 awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.6,33,300.00(rupees six lakh thirty three thousand three hundred) only with interest at 7.5 % P.A. from the date of filing till its realization to the appellant. It was further directed that the Insurance Company shall release only 50% of the awarded amount with interest in favour of the claimant and the rest 50% would have to be borne by the claimant/injured himself because he is found to have been negligent for which the subject accident occurred. Aggrieved by the quantum of the said awarded amount and the direction as regards contributory negligence, the appellant preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount.