Allowed

Mani Roy v. Raj Kr. Gour and Ors.

Tripura HC30 Jun 2017MAC App./3/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, set aside a nil award which was based on the absence of legal representatives of the deceased. After adding them as parties, the Court ordered the insurer to deposit ₹1,87,000 with interest for equal distribution.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of ₹1,87,000 with 7% interest from the date of claim petition ordered to be deposited by the insurer and distributed equally to the legal representatives.

Mani Roy Vs Raj Kr. Gour and Ors. — Insurance | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

MAC App No. 03/2016

¶2

B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶3

Present: For the appellant : Mr. R. R. Datta, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. D. C. Roy, Adv. for respn. No.4 Mr. S. D. Choudhury, Adv. for respn. No.2

¶4

30.06.2017.

¶5

Heard Mr. R. R. Datta, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the Insurer and Mr. D. C. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4. No representation from the respondent No.5 despite proper service of notice upon her.

¶6

Aggrieved by the nil award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in his judgment dated 03.08.2015 & 03.08.2015 of TS (MAC) No.448 of 2010, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

¶7

Though the learned Tribunal determined the amount of compensation payable to the appellant at ₹1,87,000/-, he nevertheless proceeded to give nil award on the ground that one, Sri Phani Roy, Smt. Ruma Roy and Sri Rajan Roy were not made party respondents in the appeal. However, the fact that Sri Rajan Roy was made a party respondent, i.e. as Opposite Party No.3 in the claim petition can be seen from the cause title itself. Subsequently, on the application of the appellant, Sri Phani Roy and Smt. Ruma Roy were made party respondents No. 4 and 5 in the appeal vide order dated 28.07.2016 passed by this Court in IA No. 568 of 2016. As all the legal representatives are now on record, the basis for denying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is no longer there.

¶8

MAC App. No. 03/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶9

Resultantly, the appellant, the respondent No.3, respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 who are legal representatives of the deceased will be entitled to receive the aforesaid compensation together with the interest awarded thereon in equal shares. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside. The respondent No. 2, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., is directed to deposit the compensation amount of ₹1,87,000/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim petition for payment to the appellant, respondents No.3,4, and 5 in equal shares.

¶10

The appeal is disposed of in the manner and to the extent indicated above. Transmit the LC record forthwith.

¶11

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶12

d.dey.

¶13

MAC App. No. 03/2016 Page 2 of 2

Mani Roy v. Raj Kr. Gour and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Roy v. Raj Kr. Gour and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjib Banik Vs Tinku Ghosh

The Tradco Vs The State Of Tripura

Md. Bahar Miah Vs the State of Tripura

Sukhamoy Paul Vs State of Tripura and 2 Ors.

Surjya Kr. Deb Vs Dulal Deb and Ors.

Subal Ch. Das and Ors. Vs Swapan Ghosh and Ors.