JAHAR DEB Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. P. Deb Roy, learned counsel for the plaintiff, appellant, and Mr. P. R. Barman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the financier respondent No.3.

(2.) The appellant instituted, as plaintiff, Money Suit No. 11 of 1998, seeking decree for, inter alia, compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, as defendants, the case of the plaintiff-appellant being briefly stated, thus. With the help of the defendant No.2, (i.e. the respondent No. 3 in the present appeal) as financier, the plaintiff purchased a truck, which came to be registered as AS/01-C-9147. This vehicle was insured with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for Rs. 5,60,000/-. On 30-9-1995, when the truck was proceeding from Guwahati to Agartala, it fell into river Borak, under Katigorah Police Station, District Cachar, and washed away. Having lost the vehicle and also the onion, which the vehicle was carrying, the plaintiff claimed the said sum of Rs. 30 lakhs as compensation.

(3.) The insurer defendant contested the suit by filing their written statement, their case being thus .The financier (i.e., the respondent No.3 herein) has already settled the claim for a sum of Rs. 3,74, 234/- and, hence, the insurer is not liable to pay any further amount to the plaintiff. The suit is not maintainable inasmuch as the place of the accident was in the District of Cachar, which falls in the State of Assam, whereas the suit has been instituted at west Tripura, Agartala. which falls in the State of Tripura. The suit ought to have been instituted in the Court of competent jurisdiction in the District of Cachar and not in the District of West Tripura, Agartala. This apart, the claim application could have been made by the plaintiff under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') and, hence, no civil suit, in such a case, ought to have been instituted claiming compensation.