KHEM RAJ CHETTRI Vs. HEM BAHADUR CHETTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim, (for short, 'MACT') awarded a total compensation of Rs.63,04,500.00(Rupees sixty three lakhs, four thousand and five hundred) only, to the Claimants (Respondents No.1 to 5 herein), and directed the Appellant, (Respondent No.1 before the Learned MACT), to make good the compensation to the Claimants. Dissatisfied by the liability thrust on him, in MACT Case No.16 of 2022, (Hem Bahadur Chettri and Others vs. Khem Raj Chettri and Another), dtd. 29/5/2023, the Appellant is before this Court.

(2.) The Claimant No.1 (Respondent No.1 herein) is the husband of the deceased, the Claimants No.2 and 3 (Respondents No.2 and 3 herein), are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, of the deceased and the Claimants No.4 and 5 (Respondents No.4 and 5 herein), are the children (son and daughter respectively) of the deceased.

(3.) Before this Court, it is contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Learned MACT was in error in directing the Appellant to pay the compensation as there was no violation of the terms of the insurance policy. Secondly, there was no proof whatsoever that the deceased was not wearing a helmet. Even if, the deceased was not wearing a helmet, there was no causal connection between the violation and the accident. Drawing succour from the ratio in Mohammed Siddique and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 57, it was contended that the Supreme Court observed therein that, the fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle, along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. There must be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. Strength was also derived from the decision in Anjana Narayan Kamble and Others vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another[1] wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in Mohammed Siddique (supra). That, as the deceased was riding pillion on the scooty, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the scooty was duly insured vide a package policy, Exhibit 9, the Respondent No.6 was liable to pay the compensation granted and not the Appellant, the owner of the scooty.