1. This motor accident claim case has arisen out of an application ...
1. This motor accident claim case has arisen out of an application ... 1. This motor accident claim case has arisen out of an application ...
2 husband died on the spot. For the accident, Boginadi PS Case No.18/2008 u/s 279/ 304(A) IPC was registered. Hence, the claim. 3. OP No.1, the Branch Manager/ Divisional Manager of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and the OP No.2, the General Manager of the said Company being the insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS.07.C/0119 (Winger) contested the case by filing joint written statement, wherein they denied the statements made in the Claim application relating to the manner in which the accident took place, and also stated that the claim for the death of a owner / driver of a vehicle under P.A. coverage can not be settled in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the nominee or legal heir of the deceased is to apply directly to the Insurance Company in the proper format for settlement of the claim. It is also submitted that the claim of the claimant is excessive and baseless. Under the premises, the OPs pray for exempting them from the liability of making payment of any amount as compensation. 4. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for just decision of the case : 1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS.07.C/0119 (Winger) causing death to Pradip Baruah 2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for 3) What other relief / reliefs the parties are entitled to 5. In order to substantiate the claim, Two witnesses including the Claimant have submitted their evidence on affidavit and they were cross examined on behalf of the OPs. No witness was adduced from the side of the Opposite Parties. The claimant also exhibited the Accident Information Report in Form 54 as Ext.1, the certified copy of the Chaoldhowaghat Police Out Post GD Entry as Ext.2 and the certified copy of the Post Mortem Report of the deceased as Ext.3. 6. I have heard argument of the learned advocates for the claimant and the Opposite Parties, Insurance Company, and also perused the evidence on record.
3 7. To arrive at a just decision of the case the following issue-wise discussion is taken up. ISSUE NO.1 : 8. To decide the above issues, we have the evidence of Two PWs. Both of them are not eye witnesses of the accident in question. PW.1, claimant, Smti Momi Baruah also does not disclose from whom she came to know about the circumstance under which the fatal accident took place. As such, her evidence is nothing more than hearsay. PW.2, Sri Raju Dhan stated that he was the handyman of the vehicle involved in the accident, and on the day of occurrence i.e., 16.12.2008 at about 9 Pm, he alongwith the deceased, who was the owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle reached home after taking dinner in a hotel, but on the next day morning, while he went to the house of the deceased, Pradip Baruah, he came to know that Pradip Baruah died on the previous night when he met with an accident while going to Gogamukh. During cross examination of these two witnesses, the OPs, Insurance company failed to shake the credibility of these witnesses in any manner whatsoever. From Ext.1, Accident Information Report in Form-54 and Ext.3, certified copy of the Post Mortem Report, it also appears that the deceased, Pradip Baruah died in the motor vehicular accident that took place on 16.12.2008 at about 11 Pm at Milanpur near Subansiri College under Boginadi PS. 9. It becomes evident that both PW.1 and PW.2 had not seen the accident. In such a situation, this hardship can be avoided by application of the maxim res ipsa loquitor. The principle is that there are certain happenings which do not occur normally unless there is negligence. In the instant case, it appears that the accident occurred on NH-52, which is wide enough. The deceased was the owner -cum- driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident, so there is none to explain the circumstance under which the accident took place. 10. In that view of the matter, I am constrained to hold that the fatal accident took place due to negligent driving of the vehicle. Accordingly, there remains no doubt that deceased, Pradip Baruah, the husband of the Claimant died as a result of the motor accident that took
- Page 1: IN THE COURT OF MEMBER, MOTOR ACCID
- Page 5 and 6: 5 According to this court, the lega
- Page 7 and 8: 7 High Court in the case of Bajaj A
- Page 9: 9 of this award, failing which inte
3<br />
7. To arrive at a just decision <strong>of</strong> the <strong>case</strong> the following<br />
issue-wise discussion is taken up.<br />
ISSUE NO.1 :<br />
8. To decide the above issues, we have the evidence <strong>of</strong> Two<br />
PWs. Both <strong>of</strong> them are not eye witnesses <strong>of</strong> the <strong>accident</strong> in question. PW.1,<br />
<strong>claim</strong><strong>an</strong>t, Smti Momi Baruah also does not disclose from whom she came to<br />
know ab<strong>out</strong> the circumst<strong>an</strong>ce under which the fatal <strong>accident</strong> took place. As<br />
such, her evidence is nothing more th<strong>an</strong> hearsay. PW.2, Sri Raju Dh<strong>an</strong><br />
stated that he was the h<strong>an</strong>dym<strong>an</strong> <strong>of</strong> the vehicle involved in the <strong>accident</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d<br />
on the day <strong>of</strong> occurrence i.e., 16.12.2008 at ab<strong>out</strong> 9 Pm, he alongwith the<br />
deceased, who was the owner-cum-driver <strong>of</strong> the said vehicle reached home<br />
after taking dinner in a hotel, but on the next day morning, while he went to<br />
the house <strong>of</strong> the deceased, Pradip Baruah, he came to know that Pradip<br />
Baruah died on the previous night when he met with <strong>an</strong> <strong>accident</strong> while<br />
going to Gogamukh. During cross examination <strong>of</strong> these two witnesses, the<br />
OPs, Insur<strong>an</strong>ce comp<strong>an</strong>y failed to shake the credibility <strong>of</strong> these witnesses<br />
in <strong>an</strong>y m<strong>an</strong>ner whatsoever. From Ext.1, Accident Information Report in<br />
Form-54 <strong>an</strong>d Ext.3, certified copy <strong>of</strong> the Post Mortem Report, it also<br />
appears that the deceased, Pradip Baruah died in the <strong>motor</strong> vehicular<br />
<strong>accident</strong> that took place on 16.12.2008 at ab<strong>out</strong> 11 Pm at Mil<strong>an</strong>pur near<br />
Sub<strong>an</strong>siri College under Boginadi PS.<br />
9. It becomes evident that both PW.1 <strong>an</strong>d PW.2 had not<br />
seen the <strong>accident</strong>. In such a situation, this hardship c<strong>an</strong> be avoided by<br />
<strong>application</strong> <strong>of</strong> the maxim res ipsa loquitor. The principle is that there are<br />
certain happenings which do not occur normally unless there is negligence.<br />
In the inst<strong>an</strong>t <strong>case</strong>, it appears that the <strong>accident</strong> occurred on NH-52, which is<br />
wide enough. The deceased was the owner -cum- driver <strong>of</strong> the vehicle in<br />
question at the time <strong>of</strong> <strong>accident</strong>, so there is none to explain the circumst<strong>an</strong>ce<br />
under which the <strong>accident</strong> took place.<br />
10. In that view <strong>of</strong> the matter, I am constrained to hold that<br />
the fatal <strong>accident</strong> took place due to negligent driving <strong>of</strong> the vehicle.<br />
Accordingly, there remains no doubt that deceased, Pradip Baruah, the<br />
husb<strong>an</strong>d <strong>of</strong> the Claim<strong>an</strong>t died as a result <strong>of</strong> the <strong>motor</strong> <strong>accident</strong> that took
Change language