NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SATI RANI DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-National Insurance Co. Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as 'insurance Company') challenging the judgment and award dated 31. 3. 98 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T. S. (MAC) 199 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal held that the husband of the claimant/respondent No. 1, Sri Sankar Prasad Dey is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 1. 9. 1994 i. e. the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

(2.) HEARD Mr. D. R. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner/insurance Company. Also heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. K. Dutta, learned Counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the owner/respondent No. 3.

(3.) THE factual aspects, in a nutshell, required to be decided in the writ petition are as follows : the husband of the claimant/petitioner / respondent No. 1, Sri Sankar Prasad Dey, aged about 35 years, went out for morning walk on 31. 5. 04 and while he was walking near 'jahar Bridge' on the extreme left side of Agartala-Udaipur Road at about 6. 00 a. m. , the offending vehicle bearing No. TRS-709 (bus) allegedly driven at a high speed, rashly and negligently towards Bishalgarh from Battala side dashed him violently causing severe injuries on his person. Immediately, he was brought to V. M. Hospital and from there, he was taken to G. B. Hospital where he had undergone medical treatment as an indoor patient from 31. 5. 1994 to 17. 7. 1994 and thereafter as an outdoor patient. He had also undergone treatment under some private doctors. Ultimately, he became permanently disabled and also mentally abnormal due to the said accident. At the time of accident, Sri Shankar Prasad Dey was a mechanic. He was also the owner of a mechanical shop and was earning around Rs. 4,000/- per month from the said mechanical shop. In the claim petition, the claimant /wife of the injured claimed compensation against the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle i. e. the writ petitioner / Insurance Company for Rs. 23,30,000/ -. The claim of the claimant/respondent No. 1 was objected by the opposite parties/owner of the offending vehicle as well as by the Insurance Company by filing their written objections. It was averred by the owner that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, therefore, the claim of compensation against the owner was liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, it was submitted by the Insurance Company that the Insurance Company was not liable for any loss or damage, if any of the policy conditions was violated by the valid insured during the validity period of the policy.