HEMDNDRA DUTTA CHOUDHURY Vs. ARUN KUMAR BARDOLOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three appeals arise out of common judgment and award passed on 23-7-76 by Sri G. Hussain, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Gauhati, for short "Tribunal", in M.A.C. Cases Nos. 16 (K)/74, 17 (K)/74 and 24 (K)/74. In M.A.C. Case No. 16 (K)/74 Sri Pulak Hazarika, Sri Koushik Hazarika, Sri Soumik Hazarika and Sri Amik Hazarika, the minor sons of the deceased Rajendra Nath Hazarika represented by Smt. SUniti Hazarika, their mother and natural guardian, were the claimants. In M.A.C. Case No. 17 (K)/74 Smt. Suniti Hazarika, the widow of the deceased, was the claimant. In M.A.C. Case No. 24 (K)/74 Sri Arun Kumar Bordoloi was the claimant. By the impugned judgment the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,50,343/- to Sri Arun Kumar Bordoloi in M.A.C. Case No. 24 (K)/74, and jointly awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- to the widow and the minor sons of the deceased in M.A.C. Case Nos. 16 (K)/74 and 17 (K)/74. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the award Sri Hemendra Dutta Choudhury, owner of the offending Ambassador car No. ASZ 8856 and the insurer, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., for short "Insurance Company", have come up in appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act in M.A. (F) 62/76 impleading Sri Arun Kumar Bordoloi as respondent, in M.A. (F) 9/77 impleading Smt. Suniti Hazarika as respondent and in M.A. (F) 10/77 impleading the minors of the deceased as respondents. As all the three appeals arise out of the common judgment and award it was decided to dispose of all the three appeals analogously.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of these appeals. The respondents submitted that these joint appeals on behalf of the owner and the insurer of the vehicle did not lie inasmuch as the owner could not be said to be a "person aggrieved" because nothing had been ordered to be paid by the owner and the insurer could not challenge the award on the grounds, inter alia, of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and quantum of compensation, which are the two points urged in the main in the memoranda of appeal. By the judgment and order dated 7-8 83 of a Division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (Hansaria, J) this objection was overruled.

(3.) THE opposite parties (appellants) resisted the claims by filing written statements mainly on the grounds that the driver of the offending vahicle was not responsible for the accident and the claims were highly inflated. On the pleadings, two separate sets of issues were framed, but on the basis of submission made before the learned Tribunal at the time of argument, 7 issues were taken up for consideration. Issues No. 2 and 3 were framed to determine as to whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and whether the accident was caused due to the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter. Issues No. 6 and 7 were framed to determine the points as to whether the claimants were entitled to get compensation as claimed by them and whether they were entitled to any other relief. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held that the unfortunate accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the motor car No. ASZ 8856 (Ambassador car) by its driver and that the plea of the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter raised by the opposite parties was wholly unreliable as not supported by any cogent evidence. Accordingly the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as stated above.