Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030004152024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./7/2024 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl Branch R/b its Branch Manager, Aizawl VERSUS Smt Lalrinawmi and 2 Ors. W/o Lianneihzuia (L), R/o Bungkawn Veng, Aizawl 2:Master John Malsawmkim Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr K Laldinliana Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date on which judgment is reserved : 25.08.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J) Heard Mr. K Laldinliana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for Page No.# 2/6 setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2025 passed by the learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 13/2019. 3. The respondents Lalrinawmi, w/o Lalneihzuia, and Master John Malsawmkima, s/o Lalneihzuia, Bawngkawn, Aizawl, Mizoram, preferred this claim on 27.03.2019, claiming compensation for the death of her husband/father, Lianneihzuia, aged 29 years, who died in a vehicular accident on 06.10.2011. The case of the claimants is that on 06.10.2011, one Bus B/R No. MZ-08-1285 (TATA Star), owned by R. Zonunsanga, S/o L.T. Sanga of Kanhmun, Mamit District, and driven by The Liana of Kanhmun Village, met with an accident. Due to the accident, one of the passengers, i.e., Lianneihzuia, husband of Smt. Lalrinawmi, was badly injured and evacuated to PHC Rawpuichhip and later referred to Civil Hospital, Aizawl, for better treatment. Unfortunately, the victim succumbed to his injuries and died on 07.10.2011 at Civil Hospital, Aizawl. The deceased, Lianneihzuia, was a driver by profession. The vehicle, Bus B/R No. MZ-08-1285 (TATA Star), was validly insured with the O.P. No. 2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., under Policy No. 05200031110110001183, and the period of insurance was from 31.05.2011 to 30.05.2012. The claimants filed the case under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against O.P. No. 1, the vehicle owner, and O.P. No. 2, the Page No.# 3/6 Insurance Company, claiming compensation for the death of Lianneihzuia in a vehicular accident. 4. The O.P. No. 2/appellant contested the case by filing a written statement denying the claim of the claimants and disputing the claim of accidental death. However, what is important to note is that the respondent No. 2/appellant, in its written statement, had denied that the claimants are the wife and son of the deceased, namely, Lianneihzuia, and, as such, they are not entitled to compensation due to the death of the said Lianneihzuia. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants could not establish the fact of their marriage with the deceased by adducing any documentary evidence in the form of a marriage certificate or any other document. It was also submitted that the claimant No. 2/respondent No. 2 is the son of the deceased. Although a birth certificate was produced in respect of the respondent No. 2, the name of the father is shown in the birth certificate as “Vanlalzuia”, whereas, as per the claim petition as well as the police report and the death certificate exhibited before the learned Tribunal, the name of the deceased is Lianneihzuia. It is further submitted that although an affidavit has been submitted by the claimant/respondent stating that Lianneihzuia and Vanlalzuia are one and the same person, the said affidavit cannot be relied upon Page No.# 4/6 as the same was sworn on 25.02.2019 by describing herself as the wife of Lianneihzuia, whereas she was already married to another person prior to the said date. Moreover, she had obtained a certificate from the Local Council dated 26.02.2019 stating that she had not remarried, but on the said date she had already married another person. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the discrepancy in the description of the husband’s name in the aforesaid affidavit need not be given undue importance, as it is a matter of inadequacy in drafting. Furthermore, the deceased was earlier known as Vanlalzuia, as he had come from another place, and subsequently, he came to be known as Lianneihzuia. That is the reason for the discrepancy in the name of the deceased in the birth certificate of the respondent No. 2, submits learned counsel for the respondents. 7. It was the categorical stand of the respondents, no doubt, before the learned Tribunal, that the appellant/O.P. No. 2 had contended that the claimants were not the wife and son of the deceased and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to decide the said question either as a separate issue or as part of Issue No. 2, which was framed by the learned Tribunal. However, without discussing the aforesaid documents, the learned Tribunal had straightaway concluded that the claimants were the wife and son of the Page No.# 5/6 deceased, and no discussion of the aforesaid documents is to be found in the impugned Judgment and Award dated 26.02.2025. 8. It is true that the Tribunal cannot decide an issue of paternity, as such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but it ought to at least have formed a prima facie view, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, as to whether the claimants were the wife and son of the deceased, so as to enable the Tribunal to award compensation to the said claimants. 9. However, no reason is discerned from the impugned judgment for the conclusion of the learned Tribunal that the claimants were so related to the deceased. 10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I deem it fit to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Award and with a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the aforesaid issue on the basis of pleading and evidence. It shall be open to the parties to adduce further evidence in this regard. 11. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. Send back the records. 12. The statutory deposit, if any, made by the petitioner before the Registry shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant