CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. VANLALHRIATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the claimant respondent No. 1.

(2.) This is an appeal filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned Judgment and Award dtd. 2/11/2023 passed by the learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 43/2019, wherein the learned Tribunal had awarded the sum of Rs.20,49,000.00 with 7% interest per annum, from the date of filing the application i.e., on 6/8/2019 to be paid by the Insurance Company/appellant.

(3.) Facts of the case in brief is that the daughter of the claimant Lalrempuii, aged 34 years died in the vehicular accident on 5/4/2019 at 2:15 PM, when one tripper bearing registration No. MZ 01 M-7405 belonging to the respondent No. 2, which was driven by respondent No. 2, while proceeding towards Mamit side, carrying a load of stone chips, knocked down the Scooty bearing registration No. MZ 01/3847 driven by Lalrempuii (deceased) with one pillion rider. The accident caused the instant death of Scooty driver Lalrempuii, while the pillion rider is kept unhurt. Accordingly, Mamit PS Case No. 20/2019 dtd. 5/4/2019 was registered under Sec. 279/304A/427 r/w Sec. 184 MV Act, 1988 against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant then filed an application under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents claiming compensation for the death of her daughter in the vehicular accident. The deceased Lalrempuii was employed as a teacher in Helen Lowry Higher Secondary School and said to have a monthly fixed pay of Rs.10,000.00 and that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the Insurance Company Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company bearing policy No. 3379/01760929/000/01, which had a validity from 27/8/2018 to 26/8/2019. The claim was contested by the respondents and the Insurance Company (present appellant), by stating that the claim petition was not maintainable in its present form and style and that they had not received the accident information report in form 54 as required under Sec. 134(c) and under Sec. 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rules 150 (1 & 2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. That there were no eye witness and it is not proved that the death of the deceased Lalrempuii was caused due to the accident. The respondent No. 2, owner of the vehicle and respondent No. 3, driver of the accident vehicle did not contest the case. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: