Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010023562013 2025:GAU-AS:4754 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./116/2013 RAJESH DEVI BRAHMIN and 2 ORS W/O LATE JAGADISH BRAHMIN, LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE JAGADISH BRAHMIN. 2: SMTI PUJA SARMA D/O LAE JAGADISH BRAHMIN 3: NAVEEN SARMA S/O LATE JAGADISH BRAHMIN ALL RESIDENTS OF DEPOT ROAD KOKRAJHAR TOWN WARD NO. 4 P.O. and P.S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTAD0 ASSAM VERSUS NISHANT NAHATA and 2 ORS S/O SHRI NARENDRA NAHATA OF ASSAM SAW MILL, R/O DEPOT ROAD, KOKRAJHAR TOWN, WARD NO. 4, P.O. and P.S. KOKRAJHAR, DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTAD, ASSAM. 2:THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. GUWAHATI BRANCH GUWAHATI 781005 ASSAM. 3:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER Page No.# 2/4 BONGAIGAON DIVISIONAL OFFICE CHAPAGURI ROAD BONGAIGAON P.O. BONGAIGAON 783380 DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM For the Appellant(s) : Mr. C. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. L. Sarma, Advocate Date of Hearing : 21.04.2025 Date of Judgment : 21.04.2025 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. C. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. L. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 21.07.2012 passed in MAC Case No.123/1994 whereby the claim proceedings was dismissed. 3. The facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal proceedings is that on 26.12.1991, the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants i.e. one Jagadish Brahmin (since deceased) along with Shri O.P. Pandey, IFS, DFO of Kokrajhar and Shri Nishant Nahata the owner of the Maruti Van bearing Registration No.AS-16/0789 was proceeding from Kokrajhar to Guwahati along with the driver Shri Monoj Kumar Choudhury on board. The said Maruti Van met with an accident at Kishan Bazar near Bongaigaon Railway Page No.# 3/4 Godown on National Highway No.31 with two trucks. The predecessor-in- interest of the claimants Late Jagadish Brahmin was injured. Resultantly, he filed a claim proceedings being MAC Case No.123/1994. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Late Jagadish Brahmin expired and the said proceedings was continued through the claimants. In the said claim proceedings, the owner of the Maruti Van as well as the insurer of the Maruti Van i.e. the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein were only impleaded. 4. It is seen that the said claim proceedings was initially disposed of vide a judgment and order dated 04.06.1997 by the learned Member, MACT, Bongaigaon. Subsequent thereto, vide an order dated 04.01.02, this Court had remanded the matter back to the learned Tribunal for fresh disposal. On the basis thereof, four additional issues were framed apart from the originally framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants, witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. On behalf of the insurer, evidence was adduced. 5. The learned Tribunal vide the judgment and award dated 21.07.2012, dismissed the said claim proceedings primarily on the ground that the Maruti Van in question was not the offending vehicle and the offending vehicles were the trucks in question and without the owner of the trucks or the insurance company of the trucks impleaded, the claim proceedings was not maintainable. The question therefore arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment and award dated 21.07.2012. 6. This Court has duly taken note of the evidence of the PW-2 and during the cross-examination, PW-2 had categorically mentioned that the driver of Page No.# 4/4 the Maruti Van drove the vehicle with right speed and in the right direction. The PW-2 also stated that the two trucks were involved in the accident could not be identified as the two trucks fled away. 7. Taking into account that the Maruti Van in question was not the offending vehicle as also held by the learned Member, MACT, Bongaigaon, the question of imposition of any compensation upon the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the instant proceedings does not arise. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the instant appeal for which the instant appeal stands dismissed. 9. The Registry is directed to forthwith return the LCR to the learned Court below. JUDGE Comparing Assistant