Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has set aside part of an order of a motor accident claims tribunal in connection with the death of an occupant of an insured vehicle owing to rash and negligent driving about a decade ago.
Notably, the motor accident claims tribunal had directed the insurance company (appellant) to compensate the claimant and recover the same from the offending vehicle’s owner.
“I am of the considered opinion that the direction of the claims tribunal to the insurance company to pay the compensation awarded first to the claimant and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner later on is not sustainable and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, that part of the direction is set aside,” a single-judge bench, while making the observation, stated in its directive here recently.
On the contrary, the high court was of the opinion that the owner/insurer was liable to satisfy the tribunal’s award and pay compensation to the claimant by depositing the awarded amount before the tribunal within three months.
The mishap dates back to January 23, 2013, when the claimant and her husband were travelling in the vehicle, and due to rash and negligent driving, the vehicle hit a tree, leading to the claimant sustaining grievous injuries and her husband dying on the spot.
The claimant subsequently filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (Tribunal), claiming compensation for the death of her husband.
The insurance company (appellant) contested the case by arguing that the policy issued in respect of the vehicle in question was a private car policy and did not cover the occupants travelling in a private car.
However, negating the arguments of the appellant company, the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order dated January 20, 2015, and awarded a sum of Rs 12,17,800 with interest at the rate of six per cent from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation and directed the insurance company (appellant) to pay the same to the claimant within 90 days from the date of the impugned order.
Aggrieved by the tribunal’s order, the insurance company appealed before the High Court. Thereafter, the counsel appearing for the insurance company (appellant) submitted that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation since the insurance policy did not cover the risk of the occupants travelling in a private car.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the claimant (respondent) submitted that the tribunal had rightly passed the order under the doctrine of pay and recovery as there was a valid insurance policy at the relevant time of the incident.
Upon hearing both arguments, the court observed that although the concerned motor insurance policy did not cover the risk of the vehicle occupants, the insurance company had been directed to pay the claimant since the policy was valid at the time of the incident and considering the fact that the offending vehicle was duly insured by the insurance company.
Dear Reader,
Every day, our team at EastMojo travels through rain, rough roads, and remote hills to bring you stories that matter – stories from your town, your people, your Northeast.
We do this because we believe in truthful, independent journalism. No big corporate backing, no government pressure – just honest reporting by local journalists who live and breathe the same air you do.
But to keep doing this work, we need you. Your small contribution helps us pay our reporters fairly, reach places others ignore, and keep asking the tough questions.
If you believe the Northeast deserves its own fearless voice, stand with us.
Support independent journalism. Be a Member.
Thank you,
Karma Paljor
Editor-in-Chief, eastmojo.com
Also Read | Assam: STF seizes over 1 kg heroin, arrests 2 people