GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 5 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 5:

1. Heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal, under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act, is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.05.2014 and review order dated 09.07.2014, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur, in MAC Case No. 140/2009.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award dated 15.05.2014, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur ('Tribunal', for short) had directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 8,96,164/-, to the claimant/respondent No. 1 herein, being the compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment to the claimant, and vide impugned review order dated 09.07.2014, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 9,23,738/-, by modifying the earlier award.

Background facts:-

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:

"On 05.03.2009, at about 3:45 p.m., when the husband of the claimant/respondent No. 1 herein, namely, Bikash Jyoti Lahkar was returning from the Forest Department Office at Chariduar and proceeding towards Balipara on foot, one Truck, bearing Registration No. AR-03-0342, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down, because of which he died on the spot. At the relevant time, his age was 40 years and was working as a Forest Guard in the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Assam and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.

The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, i.e. the owner and driver of the Truck filed their written statement denying negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 2, and they stated that on 05.03.2009, at about 3 p.m., the said Truck, which was loaded with stones and proceeding towards Balipara, broke down near Mansiri river. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 immediately informed the opposite party No. 1 about the same and the opposite party No. 1 brought one mechanic to repair the Truck. At about 3:45 p.m., when the Truck was being repaired by the mechanic by keeping the truck standing on jacks, the claimant's husband came on foot and seeing the broken truck he stopped, and when the claimant's husband saw that the mechanic was unsuccessful in removing a broken part of the Truck, he voluntarily slipped below the Truck and hit the bottom part with a hammer which was lying there, as a result the jack slipped and the Truck fell upon the claimant's husband resulting in his instant death. It was also stated that the opposite party No. 1 and opposite No. 2 were not responsible and no responsibility can be saddled upon them, and that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.3/appellant herein, vide Policy No. 530704/31/08/02/00005549, and it was valid from 30.12.2008 to 29.12.2009, and that if there was any liability, then the opposite party No. 3 had to bear the same.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoMN81qrxuI3FXo3ftGl89tkuJ6Ei%2B6IVf1Py%2FJBmJTno&caseno=MACApp./125/2021&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010072882021&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.