Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 344 (CAL)

Prasanta Kumar Dutta v. Pushpa Saha

2000-07-13

GORACHAND DE, Samaresh Banerjea

body2000
JUDGMENT G.C. De, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.83 passed by the District Judge, Birbhum in M.A.C.C. No. 1 of 1980. The learned Judge fixed the total amount of compensation at Rs. 20,000/- payable to the mother of the 14-year old boy and thereafter apportioned that amount to the extent of Rs. 5000/- shall be paid by the insurer and the balance 15000/- by the owner without assigning any reason. 2. In this appeal the only point urged before us is that since the vehicle in question was covered by a valid policy of insurance, the entire amount of compensation fixed by the court was payable by the insurer. It appears to us that the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle has not been denied by the insurer in the written statement filed before the Tribunal. So that being the position, we do not find any reason as to how the learned Judge apportioned the amount between the owner and the insurer. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant that the entire amount of the compensation fixed by the Tribunal should be paid by the insurer of the vehicle. 3. So allowing this appeal and in modifying the Award, we direct that the entire amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is to be paid by the insurer of the vehicle namely, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., to the claimant within one month from date. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest on the said amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date and if the amount is not paid within one month, the entire amount of Award shall carry further interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this judgment till recovery. 4. The amount deposited by the appellant/owner of the vehicle before the trial court be refunded to the owner of the vehicle. 5. It may be recorded that even on second call learned Advocate for the insurer as well as the claimant did not appear. 6. Let the Lower Court Records be sent down to the Tribunal forthwith. 7. Certified Xerox copy of this judgment, if applied for, be granted as expeditiously as possible. Samaresh Banerjea, J.: I agree. Appeal allowed.