Assam: Gauhati High Court sets aside order for NFR to pay compensation to victim’s kin
Staff Reporter
Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court issued a judgement and order dated July 19, 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia, in MAC Case No. 23/2010, instructing the payment of compensation to the family of the deceased travelling in the driver's cabin of a Tata Magic ACE Pick Up vehicle. However, the appellant wanted the driver to be punished according to the relevant Railways Act, 1989.
According to the facts, when the vehicle tried to cross an unmanned railway crossing near Laipuli, a train coming from Lidu towards Dibrugarh hit the aforesaid vehicle. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries. Therefore, Rekha Bharali, the wife of the deceased, his two children, and his parents filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal directed the National Insurance Company Limited to pay compensation of Rs 4,03,550/- to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum for the death of her husband, the late Bibhnu Bharali.
The bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia was hearing Case No. (MACApp./349/2013).
In a nutshell, on November 13, 2009, at about 6.18 p.m., the late Bibhnu Bharali was travelling inside the driver's cabin of the TATA Magic ACE Pick-Up vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-23-AAC-0846. The vehicle was driven by Lok Bahadur Chetri. When the vehicle tried to cross one unmanned railway crossing near Laipuli, a train coming from Lidu towards Dibrugarh hit the aforesaid vehicle. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries.
Therefore, Rekha Bharali, the wife of the deceased, his two children, and his parents filed a claim under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgement and order dated July 19, 2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia, in MAC Case No. 23/2010.
The driver, Lok Bahadur Chetri, stated in his written statement that he did not notice the incoming train due to heavy fog. He further claimed that the train did not use its horn. The National Insurance Company Limited, in its written statement, pleaded that since the vehicle was a goods-carrying commercial vehicle, it could not carry passengers.
The appellant, Union of India, blamed the carelessness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle.
The Tribunal further directed the present appellant to pay an amount of Rs 4,03,550/- to the claimant, along with interest @ 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by the judgement passed by the Tribunal, the appellant. Ms. Chakraborty filed the instant appeal, which states that if any person driving is negligent in crossing an unmanned level crossing, he shall be punished with imprisonment extending to one year.
The judge pointed out that driver Lok Bahadur Chetri stated in his evidence that when he reached the level crossing, the headlights of his vehicle were switched on. He further stated that he had looked in the Dibrugarh direction and his handyman had looked in the Ledo direction. When they found no train on the track, they proceeded towards the level crossing. The driver further stated that an Army truck had crossed the unmanned railway level crossing, and he just followed that truck. Immediately, a train coming from the left hit his vehicle.
In this case, except for Lok Bahadur Chetri, there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Section 161 of the Railways Act, 1989, makes it compulsory for the drivers of every vehicle crossing an unmanned level crossing to stop and observe whether any train is coming before crossing the level crossing.
The judge ruled that it is clear on the face of the record that the driver Lok Bahadur Chetri had violated the provision of law as laid down in Section 161. The impugned judgement and order dated July 19, 2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC Case No. 23/2010 directing the appellant, NF Railways, to pay a compensation of Rs 4,03,550/- to the claimant(s) along with interest @ 6% per annum, was set aside while disposing of the MAC Appeal.
Also Watch: