Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 215 (GAU)

United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maya Rani Debnath

2002-05-21

B.B.DEB, R.S.MONGIA

body2002
This judgment and order of ours will dispose of MAC Appeal No. 102 of 2000 and C.O. (F.A.) No. 8 of 2000. 2. Briefly stated the facts here as to the aforesaid appeal and cross-objection are as under :- The claim petition was by the cross-objectioner in the aforesaid C.O. (F.A.) No. 8 of 2000 before the MACT under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act inter alia alleging that her son Nitai Debnath aged 20 years 7 months and 18 days had been done to death by an accident caused by OmniBusNo.TRS-999on 18.8.1993. The son was coming on a bi-cycle when he was struck by a speedy bus causing instant death of the son of the claimant. The bus did not stop their, in other words, it was hit and run case. It was further alleged that the bus was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 102 of 2000) at the relevant time. It was still further alleged that the deceased who was a labourer and was earning Rs. 507- per day, i.e. Rs. 1,5007-per month. The amount claimed as compensation was Rs. 5,00,0007-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,32,0007- towards compensation and it was ordered that 50% of the amount of compensation be kept in a long term fixed deposit in a Bank in the name of the claimant. The award was given on 2.8.2000 and it was ordered that if the amount is not paid within two months by the Insurance Company, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of judgment till the date of payment. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant ir^ MAC Appeal No. 102 of 2000 tried to argue that the alleged offending vehicle i.e. the Bus was in fact not the offending vehicle. Reliance for the argument is placed on the FIR which was lodged by one Ashok Roy. He is not an eye witness. He stated in the FIR that he was sitting inside the Shaktimata Club. Reliance for the argument is placed on the FIR which was lodged by one Ashok Roy. He is not an eye witness. He stated in the FIR that he was sitting inside the Shaktimata Club. As it was raining and owing to power failure, he along with some others were sitting in the club and on hearing a second coming from the Agartala Bishalgarh Road near the southern side of the club, they came out and found that the person was lying dead with bleeding injuries on the road side with a cycle. It was further stated that they came to learn that one Truck vehicle is said to have dashed against him, and fled away. From this it is urged that the person who lodged the FIR mentioned that the offending vehicle was a Truck and not Bus. 4. Suffice it to say that the informant is not an eye witness and further it is stated in the FIR that they only learnt that a Truck was involved in the accident. The claimant was consistent in her claim petition before the MACT that it was the Bus which was involved in the accident. The registration number is given and even it is stated that it is insured with the appellant Insurance Company. Even in her deposition, she states so. We cannot understand that if the said Bus was not involved in the accident why should the claimant mention a wrong vehicle specially when at the relevant time it may not be even known that a particular vehicle is insured. The owner and the driver of the vehicle, despite service, did not come to oppose the claim petition. 5. Consequently, we find nothing wrong in the finding of the learned Tribunal that it was the Bus that was insured with the appellant Insurance Company which was involved in the accident. That being so, we find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. 6. Coming to the cross-objection, we find that the income of the deceased, as deposed by the claimant, was Rs. 1,500/-per month. It is not specifically stated that the claimant was dependent entirely on the son and there is no other bread earner in the family like any other brother or the father of the deceased. 6. Coming to the cross-objection, we find that the income of the deceased, as deposed by the claimant, was Rs. 1,500/-per month. It is not specifically stated that the claimant was dependent entirely on the son and there is no other bread earner in the family like any other brother or the father of the deceased. The deceased was a bachelor and was about 21 years of age and in normal circumstances would have got married whereby the dependency of the family would have decreased monetarily as the deceased would have looked after his own family more than the parents and other dependents. The claimant is also stated to be about 60 years of age. 7. Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that whatever has been awarded by the learned Tribunal as compensation is reasonable call for no enhancement. 8. For the foregoing reasons,the Cross-objection is also hereby dismissed.