Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ruhini Bey

Gauhati HC3 Sept 2019MACApp./27/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal by an insurance company against an interim award of Rs. 25,000/- for no-fault liability granted under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that the appeal was regular based on the undisputed facts and dismissed the appeal on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The interim sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal shall be deducted from the final award if the claimant is successful.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ruhini Bey — Insurance | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC020006172018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

¶4

Case No. : MACApp. 27/2018

¶5

1:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

¶6

HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110002 AND REGIONAL AND DIVISIONAL OFFICES IN SEVERAL PLACES, INCLUDING A REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI,ASSAM AND A DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT DIMAPUR

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:RUHINI BEY

¶9

S/O LT. SARTHE BEY, PERMANENT R/O SARUMANTHI VILLAGE, P.S - KHATKHATI, KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM AND TEMPORARY R/O BURMA CAMP, NEAR DHANSERI BRIDGE, DIMAPUR

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : B. DEVNATH

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : P. B. PAUL

¶12

BEFORE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 03-09-2019

¶15

Heard Mr. Vikramjeet Devnath, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. P.B.Paul, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent.

¶16

This is an appeal directed against the order dated 16.08.2018, passed by the learned MACT, Dimapur in MAC Case No. 33/2016, wherein and whereby, the respondent/claimant was awarded an interim award of Rs. 25,000/- for no fault

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

liability under section 140 of M.V Act, 1988 pending disposal of the MAC Case No. 33/2016.

¶19

It is submitted by Mr. Devnath that the appellant met with an accident on 21.10.2014 with his own Motor cycle for which he has third party insurance policy with coverage of the owner upto the amount of Rs. 1 lakh with the appellant company. As such, right after the accident occurred he filed a claim petition under section 166 of M.V Act claiming compensation for injuries and disablement suffered by him. At the same time, he also claimed compensation under section 140 of the same Act though he is not entitled to claim under the same. However, the learned Tribunal without proper consideration of the provision of the section granted the prayer and awarded Rs. 25,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant has come before this Court.

¶20

Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submitted that admittedly the respondent/claimant has a policy upto the limit of Rs. 1 lakh, therefore, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal is within that amount insured. As such, there is nothing wrong in the order of the learned Tribunal.

¶21

It appears from the submissions of both the learned counsels that there is no dispute on the fact that the respondent’s motorbike on which he met with the accident was insured with the appellant company which covers the owner-cumdriver. There is also no dispute of the fact that the policy coverage is up to Rs.1 lakh.

¶22

From the above undisputed facts what one can see is that the sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is very much within the sum of Rs. 1 lakh insured as per the scheme. Therefore, since the respondent/claimant is still undergoing treatment for the injuries he suffered from the accident, there is nothing wrong in giving the sum of Rs. 25,000/- by the Insurance Company in the interim. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation, therefore, it is to be interpreted

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

liberally so as to serve the intent and purpose of the legislation.

¶25

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. However, the sum of Rs, 25,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be deducted from the award to be granted by the learned Tribunal, in case the claimant proof his case.

¶26

The appeal is disposed.

¶27

Sd/- JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ruhini Bey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ruhini Bey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Chemlongbila Sangtam Vs the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Pauramgum Vs the State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

State of Nagaland Vs Paul Roy Paske

Heshito Sema Vs the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Binto Semy Vs State of Nagaland through Public Prosecutor

Kanilo Assumi Vs the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.