Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 825 (GAU)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alina Teronpi

2008-11-28

MAIBAM B.K.SINGH

body2008
JUDGMENT Mutum B.K. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.1.2007 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, Nagaland in MAC Case No. 16/2005, awarding a sum of Rs.5,69,260 together with interest @ 7% per annum with effect from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 29.7.2005 as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1. 2. Heard Mr. B. Devnath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Anil Roy, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. Facts, in brief, are that the husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1 died instantly in a vehicular accident occurred on 21.5.2005 at about 3.30 RM. near the Catholic Hospital, Diphu, while the deceased was coming towards Diphu from Manja by riding his scooter bearing registration No. AS-09/3738. The deceased was knocked down by the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-09/1486, which was coming very rashly and negligently from the opposite direction. The claimant-respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'), claiming a sum of Rs.12,24,000 as compensation for the death of her husband against the owner and driver of the vehicle as well as the appellant. The appellant and the owner of the vehicle submitted the written statements denying the allegations made by the claimant-respondent No. 1. The learned Claims Tribunal, vide order dated 13.6.2006 passed an order under Section 170 of the Act, thereby allowing the appellant to contest the claim on merit. After hearing both the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal framed three issues, on which the parties were asked to adduce evidence. The claimant-respondent No. 1 was examined alone and no evidence was adduced from the side of the appellant in spite of several opportunities given to the appellant. After hearing both the parties and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Claims Tribunal arrived at the decision that the appellant as well as the owner and driver of the offending vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation amounting to Rs.6,19,260 minus the interim award of Rs.50,000, which was already granted under Section 140(2) of the Act along with an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The learned Claims Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the awarded amount together with interest in the Registry of the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of thr judgment, which was pronounced on 18th July, 2007. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, passed the impugned judgment by overlooking the evidence on record, more particularly to the fact that the accident was occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle as the accident was occurred due to head-on collusion of the scooter with the Truck. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000 without any reliable evidence on record and the impugned order was passed arbitrarily, illegally and by misreading the evidence on record. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent No. 1 submits that the deceased was a young, energetic and hard working registered 1st Class Contractor of Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council, Diphu, the deceased used to earn not less than Rs.10,000 per month and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is far less than the reasonable expectation. 5. Perused the evidence available on record carefully. The police report of the accident, charge sheet submitted by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle, driving licence, annual income certificates, date of birth certificate, admit card of the deceased and other documents were duly exhibited without any objection raised from the side of the appellant during the course of trial. In the police report marked Exbt-P/4 and the charge sheet marked Exbt-P/8, it has been clearly mentioned that the offending vehicle was driving in a very rash and negligent manner from Diphu towards Manja and knocked down the deceased near the Catholic Hospital and as a result of which the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. 6. It is also on record that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-Company and possessed all necessary valid documents for plying over the said road at the time of the said accident. The offending vehicle was insured under the Policy No. 1560 bearing Code No. 322203 with the validity from 7.2.2005 to 6.2.2006 issued by the appellant-company. 6. It is also on record that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-Company and possessed all necessary valid documents for plying over the said road at the time of the said accident. The offending vehicle was insured under the Policy No. 1560 bearing Code No. 322203 with the validity from 7.2.2005 to 6.2.2006 issued by the appellant-company. Exbts.-P/3 and P/9 are the income certificates of the deceased issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Diphu Circle and the Executive Member of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu respectively. It has been mentioned in the document marked Exbt-P/3 that the deceased was a 1st Class Contractor. The statement of the claimant-respondent No. 1 that her deceased husband was a 1st Class Contractor of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu was not even denied by the appellant in cross-examination. By the evidence on record, two facts have been established that the deceased was a 1st Class Contractor of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council at the time of his death and the deceased was born on 20.10.1971, i.e., the deceased was less than 35 years at the time of the occurrence. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the claimant-respondent No. 1 is serving as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in 2nd Assam Police Task Force and drawing handsome monthly salary and as such the claimant-respondent No. 1 has lost no dependency due to the death of the deceased. It is in the evidence of claimant-respondent No. 1 that the deceased left behind two minor children, wife and two unmarried sisters at the time of his death. Admittedly, the children of the deceased were not impleaded as parties in the claim petition. It may be mentioned that what is most important to be determined is the amount which would have contributed towards the deceased's family out of the deceased's income had he not been died in the accident. What are the incomes of the family members of the deceased are immaterial for determining the quantum of compensation under the Act. It appears that the learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the income certificates of the deceased issued by the officers of the Karbi Anglong Council and thus, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the deceased's monthly income at Rs.5,000. What are the incomes of the family members of the deceased are immaterial for determining the quantum of compensation under the Act. It appears that the learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the income certificates of the deceased issued by the officers of the Karbi Anglong Council and thus, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the deceased's monthly income at Rs.5,000. Such guess work and hypothesis for fixing the monthly income of the deceased appears to be quite reasonable and also permissible under the law, as the deceased was, undisputedly, a 1st Class Contractor at the time of his death. The learned Claims Tribunal while calculating the compensation rather applied the multiplier at the lower side, to which no objection was raised from the side of the claimant-respondent No. 1. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.60,000 and out of which Rs.39,984 (one third of the annual income of the deceased) was deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased to be incurred had he not been died in the said accident. The learned Claims Tribunal has also granted a reasonable compensation under the general damages. 7. Having regard to the above discussions and for the reasons stated above, 1 don't find any ground to interfere with the judgment dated 30.1.2007 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, Nagaland in MAC Case No. 16/2005. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. The appellant is directed to pay/deposit the compensation amount together with interest as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, for disbursement to the claimant-respondent No. 1, before the learned Claims Tribunal, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry an interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till full and final payment is made. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.