Gauhati High Court
Ranjan Deka vs M/S New India Assurance Co Ltd And Anr on 8 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010008732013
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./208/2013
RANJAN DEKA
S/O LATE NAGEN DEKA, VILL. TARANI KALBARI, P.S.MORIGAON, DIST.
MORIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD and ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.
3, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI 781001
2:JOGESWAR DEKA
S/O LATE T.R. DEKA
VILL. BORCHILA
P.S. MIKIRBHETA
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K K DEY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A ACHARYA
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY Date of Hearing : 27.06.2022 Page No.# 2/4 Date of Order : 8.9.2022 JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV) Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company.
2. Heard Mr. V. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Acharyya, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company.
3. This is an appeal filed by the claimant Ranjan Deka who filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation for injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The said claim was registered as MAC 74/2007.
4. The case of the claimant appellant is that on 10.1.2006 while the claimant was proceeding from Jagirod towards Baghara as passenger in a 407 Bus bearing registration No. AS-02-3233, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the same lost its control and met with an accident at around 3 P. M and the claimant got injured.
5. A police case was registered as Morigaon P.S.Case 299/2006 in connection with the accident. The Insurance Company by filing written statement disputed the claim including entitlement of compensation.
8. The owner of the vehicle also raised a dispute to the effect that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-02-3233 and the offending vehicle which met with the accident is having registration No. AS-02/3293.
9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Tribunal below came to a finding that it cannot be possible to hold that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. AS-02/3293.
Page No.# 3/4
10. While coming to such conclusion the learned Tribunal found disparity in the registration number of the vehicle. The basis of such findings are on the following count:
(a) The claimant in his claim petition stated that the number of the offending vehicle 407 bus was having registration No. AS-02/3233.
(b) While examining himself as a witness the claimant stated that the offending vehicle was having registration No. AS-02/3235.
(c) The Accident Information Report Ext.1 reflects that the vehicle involved on the alleged date, wherein the claimant got injured was having registration No. AS-02/3233
(d) In the claim petition itself, two registration numbers of two vehicles were given one at para 22 of the claim petition and other at Paragraph 14 of the claim petition. It was reflected at Para 22 of the claim petition that the vehicle involved in the accident was having registration No. AS-02-
3233 and in column 14 of the claim petition number of the vehicle was shown as AS-02-3293.
11. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned Tribunal below came to an conclusion that the relevant FIR/ G.D.Entry copy / Charge sheet arising out of Morigaon P.S.Case No. 299/2006 was not being exhibited or not being brought on record, the Tribunal was not in a position to ascertain the correct number of the offending vehicle and accordingly the claim was dismissed.
12. This court after perusal of the lower court record has found that the aforesaid disparities as discussed by the learned Tribunal below was correct and in view of the aforesaid, this court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim, in absence of any material evidence to show Page No.# 4/4 which vehicle was actually involved in the accident.
13. In the aforesaid backdrop the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal ought to have consider the Ext.1, Accident Information Report and the statement made in Para 22 of the claim petition, do not find favour of this court inasmuch two different registration numbers are depicted in the claim itself, and in his deposition another registration number was reflected. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that such error was minor discrepancy and the learned Tribunal ought to have ignored the same also find no favour of this court inasmuch as the same cannot be said to be minor error and the appellant during the trial has not made any endeavour to correct such error.
In view of the above, this court finds no merit in this appeal. Accordingly this appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant