MAC Case No. 914/2009 - Kamrup

COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
KAMRUP :: GUWAHATI
Present :-
Paran Kumar Phukan
Member, MACT
Kamrup, Guwahati
MAC Case No. 914/2009
1 Smti Usha Mech
2 Sri Dilip Mech .. Claimants
- VS -
1 Sri Bijay Kr Bhagat
(Owner of Vehicle No. AS-06/F-7851)
2 United India Insurance Co Ltd
(Insurer of the above vehicle) ..Opposite Parties
Advocate for the claimants : Mr Nitesh Bhatra
Advocate for the OP No. 2 : Mr A J Saikia
Date of hearing argument : 21-09-12
Date of judgment : 20-10-12
J U D G M E N T
The claimant, Smt Usha Mech, and her husband, Sri Dilip Mech,
made an application u/s 163-A of MV Act praying for compensation for the
death of their son late, Dimpu Mech, who died on 29-04-09, in an accident
arising out the use of the motor vehicle No. AS 06/F-7851 which was
insured with the United India Insurance Co Ltd.
The facts giving rise to the present claim petition was that, on 29-
04-09 at about 8.30 PM while late Dilip Mech was proceeding from
Pithaguti towards his home by riding the motorcycle bearing registration
No. AS-06/F-7851, met with an accident at Pithaguti Chariali, as a result
of the accident he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
Opposite party, Insurance co, in its written statement, besides
denying the allegation of the claimant, contended inter alia that the claim
petition is not maintainable, as the accident occurred due to the fault of
the deceased himself. That the claim was highly inflated and excessive.
That the Insurance co. is not liable to pay compensation unless it is
proved that the conditions of the policy have not been violated by the

insured. The insurance company filed an additional written statement and
it has been contended that at the time of accident the driver /victim had
not a valid and effective driving licence and as such the answering OP is
not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and the claim-petition
is liable to be dismissed.
The owner of the vehicle did not contest the case and as such the
case against him proceeded ex-parte.
Upon the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed for adjudication :-
1 Whether the victim, Dimpu Mech, died out of the motor vehicle
accident involving vehicle no. AS-06/F-7851, which occurred on 29-04-
09 ?
2 Whether any relief or compensation is available to the claimants for
the death caused to their son in the aforesaid accident, if so, what
amount and from whom ?
The claimant no. 1 examined herself as PW-1 as sole witness in
support of their case and produced some documents. The contesting OP
has not examined any witness. I have heard argument of both the parties
and the issues are decided as follows :-
ISSUE NO. 1
2
The claimants have averred in the petition and also deposed by the
claimant No. 1, that on 29-04-09 while late Dilip Mech was proceeding
towards his home by riding the motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-
06/F-7851 and when he reached at Pithaguti Chariali the aforesaid
motorcycle skidded off the road due to bad condition of the road, he fell
down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. In support of
the oral evidence the claimant has proved the police report being Ex-1,
the PM report Ex-2, copy of the driving licence of the deceased (proved in
original) Ex-3. Contesting opposite party has not adduced any evidence
regarding the accident. In deed the factum of death of the victim Dilip
Mech in the motor vehicle accident involving the motorcycle No. AS-06/F-

7851 is not in dispute. The undisputed documentary evidence, Ex-1, the
Polic Report and the Ex-2, the PM report also supported the fact, that the
victim, Dilip Mech died in the accident, arising out of the use of motor
vehicle No. AS-06/F-7851 (motorcycle). Issue No. 1 is thus answered in
affirmative.
ISSUE NO. 2
Admittedly the deceased was driving the motorcycle at the time of
accident. Although he was not the owner he was driving the same with the
consent of the owner. In the case of Ningamma –Vs – United India
Insurance Co Ltd, 2009 ACJ 2020 the honourable Supreme Court held tht
in such a case the deceased would step into the shoes of the owner of the
motorcycle and since liability is on the owner of the vehicle, his legal
representatives could not have maintained a claim u/s 163-A of the MV
Act. In view of the above decision the claimants of the case are not
entitled to any compensation. If there is any coverage for personal
accident of the owner, the claimant can realize the same directly from the
Insurance Company.
In view of what has been discussed here in before, this tribunal is
inclined to hold that, the present claim petition by the legal representative
is not maintainable.
Given under my hand & seal of this Court on this 20th day of
October 2012.
3
(Paran Kumar Phukan)
Member
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Kamrup, Guwahati