SURATAN NESSA Vs. AMRIT AGARWALA AND 6 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 5; as well as Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents No. 6 & 7. None appeared for the respondents No. 1 & 3. As per order, dated 22.11.2017, the name of respondent No. 2, Md. Nurul Islam was struck-off.

(2.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for short 'MV Act'), is directed against the judgment & award, dated 08.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(for short, 'MACT'), Nagaon, Assam, in M.A.C. Case No. 189/14, praying for enhancement of the award so far the claimant/appellant, the mother of the deceased is concerned.

(3.) The claimant/appellant, herein, is the mother of the deceased Imdad Hussain Choudhury. Her case, in a nutshell, is that, on 06.01.2014, at about 6.30PM, while the deceased Imdad Hussain Choudhury was travelling by a vehicle bearing Regn. No. AS-01/MA6876(premier Rio LX) as occupants which was driven in a moderate speed and when the said vehicle reached Rangaloo Gamariati on NH-36, suddenly, the driver of the said vehicle dashed against another vehicle bearing Regn. No. AS-01/J-5415(Oil Tanker), which was parked negligently in the middle of the road, without any parking lights such as reflectors/blinkers/indicators, and not even a line of stones piled around it to clearly indicate its stationary position. As a result of the accident, Imdad Hussain Choudhury succumbed to his injuries on the spot along with the driver of the Premier Rio LX and one of his colleagues. It is alleged that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Oil Tanker. The Opposite Parties No. 4 & 5, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., insurer of both Oil Tanker and premier Rio, in their written statement, contended that there is no cause of action for the petition and that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. They further contended that the deceased person had no driving license at that relevant point of time and hence, the company is not liable to imdenify the owner. The insurance company further denied the age, income, occupation of the deceased as alleged in the claim petition. Upon pleadings of both sides, the issues necessary for adjudication of the case were framed, as under: