Dismissed

Chanchala Nath and 2 Ors. v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2020MACApp./12/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court held that the disappearance of a passenger does not automatically amount to an accident. The appeal was dismissed due to lack of evidence connecting the disappearance to an accident or incident in the vehicle.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chanchala Nath and 2 Ors. Vs the New India Assurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010004552014

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : MACApp. 12/2014

¶5

1:CHANCHALA NATH and 2 ORS. W/O LATE MONORANJAN NATH

¶6

2: MANNA NATH

¶7

S/O LATE MONORANJAN NATH

¶8

3: PANNA LAL NATH

¶9

S/O LATE MONORANJAN NATH

¶10

ALL ABOVE ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO. 5 P.O. P.S. and DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

1:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD and ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CAPITAL TRAVELS BUILDING , CLUB ROAD, SILCHAR 1, CACHAR, ASSAM, INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01-Q-5572

¶13

2:MRS. PAMI BENARJEE C/O MR. JOYDEO BENARJEE R/O A.K. AZAD ROAD KALAPAHAR GUWAHATI-18 ASSAM OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01-Q/557

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.A BEGUM

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : MS.M CHOUDHURY

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

03-02-2020

¶20

Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Insurance Company.

¶21

The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 05.11.2013 passed by the MACT, Cachar, Silchar by which the claim made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed.

¶22

The case of the appellants is that on 21.01.2004, the husband of the Claimant No. 1 and father of the remaining claimants, i.e. Shri Monoranjan Nath went to Guwahati for some official work. After completing the same, he purportedly purchased a bus ticket bearing Seat No. 15 in Bus No. AS01/Q-5572 of Swapna Travel Private Ltd. Thereafter Shri Monoranjan Nath went to the bus counter at Paltan Bazar alongwith Shri Pinakpani Nath at about 5:00 p.m. The bus started from Guwahati for Hailakandi. Though the bus reached Hailakandi, the said Shri Monoranjan Nath was not in the bus.

¶23

The appellants/claimants thereafter filed a claim petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation on the ground that when a passenger from a motor vehicle, which was travelling from Point A to Point B goes missing, the same amounted to a motor vehicle accident.

¶24

The learned Trial Court on considering the claim petition came to a finding that the evidence adduced did not establish the fact that Shri Monoranjan Nath travelled by the said bus from Guwahati to Hailakandi or that any abnormal incident occurred in the bus during the time the bus was travelling, which could have a connection with the disappearance of Shri Monoranjan Nath. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the disappearance of a passenger from a moving vehicle amounts to a motor vehicle accident as per provision of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . He also submits that the fact that Shri Monoranjan Nath was travelling in the said bus No. AS01/Q-5572 from Guwahati to Hailakandi was proven by the fact that PW No. 2 had dropped Shri Monoranjan Nath at Paltan Bazar and had seen him board the bus.

¶27

Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/ Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that there is no proof that the said Shri Monoranjan Nath was a passenger of the bus. There is also no evidence to show that the said bus which went from Guwahati to Hailakandi was involved in any kind of accident or untoward incident. She accordingly, submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶28

A perusal of the appeal petition filed by the appellants/claimants shows that only three grounds have been taken, while challenging the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2013. Firstly, the challenge has been made on the ground that PW 2 in his evidence, had clearly stated that Shri Monoranjan Nath had boarded the bus on 21.01.2004 at Paltan Bazar, Guwahati in his presence. Secondly, as the said Shri Monoranjan Nath has not been heard of after boarding of the said bus, it can be concluded that the Shri Monoronjan Nath has died while travelling in the said bus. Thirdly, given the fact that the said Monoronjan Nath was travelling in the bus from where he went missing, the Tribunal ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the claimants and compensated the claimants as the Motor Vehicles Act was a beneficial legislation on the premise that the death occurred due to a motor vehicular accident.

¶29

The above being said, there is no evidence adduced or submission made by the appellants that any accident had occurred to the bus. There is also no evidence adduced or averments made by the appellant that any incident had occurred inside the bus, which was travelling between Guwahati and Hailakandi, that would have even a remote connection with the disappearance of Shri Monoronjan Nath. It is not the case of the appellants or the respondent No. 1 that the bus had only one passenger, i.e. Shri Monoronjan Nath. If any

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

incident had occurred with/in the bus between Guwahati to Hailakandi, which would have resulted in the disappearance of Shri Monoranjan Nath, it is very likely that the matter would have reported by the other passengers, driver and conductor of the bus to the authorities. This is not a case where vehicle drivers or passengers have been killed by persons wanting to steal the vehicle. It is also not a case of any accident having occurred upon the bus. Thus, it cannot be said that the said bus was involved in any motor vehicular accident.

¶32

Accordingly, as there is no proof that the disappearance of Shri Monoronjan Nath has been caused due to any vehicular accident or due to any incident that had occurred in the bus in question, this Court does not find any infirmity with the judgment of the learned Trial Court in dismissing the claim petition.

¶33

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Chanchala Nath and 2 Ors. v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chanchala Nath and 2 Ors. v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shams Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Maria Tanim Vs Azad Khan

Smti. Santoshi Kumari Vs Dipen Yadav

Jirsong Terang, Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Prabhu Deo Thakur Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ramesh Haloi and 5 Ors. Vs Dinabandhu Das and 5 Ors.