Two Forest Workers Killed Trying to Stop Truck: Gauhati HC Upholds Compensation, Rejecting Insurer’s Unsupported Contributory-Negligence Claim

The two appeals challenged a common Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment and award in claims arising from the deaths of two Forest Department employees, Jahedul Islam and Jyotish Das.

On 12 April 2010, the employees signalled a sand-laden truck to stop; as they attempted to pursue and stop it, the truck struck them, causing fatal injuries. The truck was owned by Sayed Ali and insured by the appellant.

The Insurance Company pleaded, among other things, that the deceased were negligent or had contributed to the accident by 50%, but led no evidence in support of those pleas. It also challenged the compensation awarded.

The party asserting contributory negligence bears the burden of proving it; a plea in a written statement is not evidence.

Apportionment requires evidence establishing that the deceased acted negligently and that their conduct contributed to the accident. The Court cited no specific statute or precedent in stating and applying these principles.

The Insurance Company’s allegations that the deceased violated traffic rules or contributed to the accident were unsupported by evidence.

Although the claimants were not eyewitnesses and the Tribunal did not place implicit reliance on the claimed eyewitness’s testimony, that evidentiary limitation did not establish the Insurance Company’s affirmative defence.

Nor could the police case, alleged traffic violations, or the driver’s acquittal—without evidence proved before the Tribunal—justify apportioning liability.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the finding fastening liability on the offending vehicle and the insurer.

Although quantum was challenged, the judgment gives no separate analysis of that ground.

It directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation, after crediting amounts already deposited or paid, with interest, before the Tribunal in accordance with the impugned judgment.

The Tribunal’s directions on disbursement and protection of compensation remained operative, subject to changes arising from minors attaining majority or a claimant’s death; the statutory deposit was to be returned to the appellant.