MAC App. No. 59/2015. Case: Roitualiani Darlong and Ors. Vs Bani Sarkar Saha and Ors.. Tripura High Court

Case NumberMAC App. No. 59/2015
Party NameRoitualiani Darlong and Ors. Vs Bani Sarkar Saha and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: P.S. Roy, Advocate and For Respondents: K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate
JudgesT. Vaiphei, C.J.
IssueMotor Vehicles
Judgement DateJanuary 16, 2017
CourtTripura High Court

Judgment:

T. Vaiphei, C.J., (At Agartala)

  1. Heard Mr. P.S. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the insurance company.

  2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (MAC) Case No. 150/2013 awarding Rs. 6,65,250/- to the appellant No. 1 after making deduction to the extent of 50% for the contributory negligence of the deceased.

  3. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly noted at the outset. On 27.02.2013 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased (J.T. Vanneisanga Darlong) was proceeding from Kumarghat towards Pacharthal by the left side of Assam-Agartala road in a motor bike bearing registration No. TR02-B-7954. When he reached near SDM Office at Kumarghat, he stopped his motor bike and parked it by the side of the road and was about to proceed towards SDM Office on foot when, according to the appellants, one mini bus bearing registration No. TR01-A-1293 coming from Dharmanagar side with excessive speed driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him and his motor bike lying on the road. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries on his person and subsequently, succumbed to his injuries. The deceased was found by the Tribunal to 28 years old at the time of the accident and is survived by his mother, two sisters and one brother. The appellants filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the death of the deceased.

  4. The claim petition was contested by both the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company by filing their respective written objection. At the conclusion of the trial, the impugned award was passed against which the appellants are now coming up before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by contributory negligence of both the deceased and the owner of the vehicle is not borne by the record and, as such, this finding is perverse. He further submits that the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being the sisters and brother of the deceased were his dependants and are equally entitled to compensation for the death of their benefactor; the Tribunal wrong in awarding the compensation only to the appellant No. 1 and in denying the compensation to the remaining appellants. The impugned judgment is, however, supported by the learned...

To continue reading

Request your trial