Tripura High Court
(Acharjee) & Another vs Shri Animesh Chakma & on 18 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Pet. 36 of 2021
For petitioner(s) : Mr. S Debnath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Biswanath Majumder, Adv.
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Order 18.02.2022 At the time of accident, the vehicle bearing registration No. TR02 3480 (Mahindra Max), owned by the petitioner, was covered by the Insurance Policy No. 20051686, certified copy of which has been produced by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. That has been admitted in the evidence on admission. But neither the claimant nor the petitioner made the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. a party in the proceeding and as such, an ex parte order was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 03.04.2009 by awarding a compensation of Rs.4,47,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
It was directed by the Tribunal that since no insurance policy was submitted, the liability of payment be borne by the owner of the vehicle. The petitioner being the owner of the vehicle challenged the said judgment and award dated 30.07.2010 delivered in TS (MAC) 293/2007 in appeal before this court [under Section 173 of the MV Act]. Page 2 of 5
The appeal being MAC Appeal No. 10/2018 was disposed of by the order dated 26.03.2019 with the following observation:
"Today, when the matter is taken up, Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellant states that order dated 14th March, 2019 shall positively be complied with and the amount disbursed to the claimants within the period stipulated therein. However, she urges that since the issue of liability needs to be adjudicated, it would be only prudent that the matter, on this limited issue, is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh, more so, in the light the copy of the insurance policy; the registration certificate; and the driving licence having been placed in the record of this Court.
Sri P.K. Debnath, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, namely, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. states that the insurer has no objection to the same, if fact wants it to be so, and in the event of the Tribunal deciding the issue in favour of the owner, the amount directed by this Court to be disbursed shall positively be reimbursed to the owner, subject however to the insurer exhausting the remedies in accordance with law."
Thereafter, the terms were agreed upon the parties which are as follows:
(a) The impugned Judgment dated 30-07-2010 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tribunal, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. T.S.(MAC) 293 of 2007 titled as Smti. Pinki Chakraborty (Acharjee) & another versus Shri Animesh Chakma & others on a limited point is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh;
(b) The owner shall positively pay the amount in terms of the impugned judgment dated 30-07-2010 to the claimants within a period of four weeks from 14th March, 2019. Needless to add, if ultimately liability is held to be that of the insurer, the amount already paid by the owner shall be reimbursed;
(c) Parties undertake to appear before the Tribunal on 4th April, 2019, on which date, a date shall be fixed by the trial Court, enabling the owner to lead evidence in support of his claim, if so required and desired;
(d) Not more than two opportunities shall be afforded to each one of the parties for such purpose;Page 3 of 5
(e) Parties undertake to fully cooperate and not to take any unnecessary adjournments;
(f) Save and except, for official witnesses, at their own cost and responsibility, parties shall produce their entire evidence on such date as may be fixed by the Court;
(g) Hearing is expedited and it is expected of the Tribunal to decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order;
(h) Liberty reserved to the parties to place on record original documents before the Tribunal;
(i) Original documents, if any, filed here be returned to the parties;
(j) The Registry is directed to „forthwith‟ remit the records to the Tribunal. Also send a copy of the order to the Tribunal.
(k) Save and except noticed supra, this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case;"
Thereafter, the Tribunal by the order dated 14.06.2019 has recorded that the owner, the petitioner herein, had submitted a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- and that was honoured. But it has been observed in the order dated 14.06.2019 that the owner had failed to deposit the remaining amount. It has been ordered as consequence that the Tribunal does not have any power to modify the conditions of the agreement as laid down in the order dated 26.03.2019 delivered in MAC Appeal No. 10 of 2018.
Thereafter, the owner had filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking relaxation from payment of the remaining amount. But that petition was not entertained by this court as the same was filed under Article 226.Page 4 of 5
Mr. B Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that the Insurance Company will discharge the liability of payment of compensation but they may not be asked to bear the interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.
It appears that the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. had known the existence of their liability in the said insurance policy at least from 26.03.2019 when the appeal was disposed. Thus, this petition stands disposed of, with direction that the Insurance Company will only bear the interest @ 6% per annum from 26.03.2019 [the day of disposal of the appeal] till the actual payment is made.
It is further clarified that the Insurance Company shall pay the entire compensation of Rs.4,47,000/- and with such amount that shall accrue on account of interest. The entire amount shall be deposited in the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. The burden of payment of interest @ 6% per annum shall remain with the owner till 25.03.2019. His liability shall be adjusted against the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner.
It has been stated by Mr. S Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that a sum of Rs.25,000/- is lying in the registry. That amount, pre-requisite of filing appeal, was deposited by the petitioner. The Registry shall transmit the said amount to the Tribunal against the case No. TS(MAC) 293 of 2007 pending in the Motor Accident Page 5 of 5 Claims Tribunal No.4, West Tripura, Agartala. The said amount will be adjusted, if there is deficit on account of payment of interest.
If any excess payment is found after adjustment, that shall be refunded to the petitioner.
If the petitioner is further required to pay the interest he shall pay the interest in accordance with law and as would be determined by the tribunal.
This order has been passed on consensus arrived at by the parties. Thus, question of maintainability has not been considered.
Despite notice, from this court, at the time of hearing, there had been no representation from the claimant-respondent.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE lodh