Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 332 (PAT)

National Insurance Company v. Meena Kumari

2012-02-27

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
Order Heard Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd., Sri Shambhu Sharan Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Binod Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3/ owner of the offending vehicle. 2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here-in-after referred to as lithe M.V. Act") has been preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 20.8.2008 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Nalanda at Biharsharif (hereinafter referred to as lithe Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 59 of 2007. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned Claims Tribunal has directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the total compensation amount of Rs. 2,29,500/-, which includes the funeral expenses etc. 3. Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the order only on the plea that it was a case of contributory negligence, but the learned Claims Tribunal has incorrectly allowed the claim petition directing the appellant to pay the entire compensation amount. 4. Fact remains that on 13.3.2007 at 9.45 A.M., while the daughter of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was going to appear in an examination alongwith two others travelling by the side of the road, she was dashed by a 'Pick-Up Van' bearing Registration No. BR-56-0129. After the accident, the daughter of the claimants, namely, Pushpa Kumari @ Priyanka Kumari died on the spot. In the said accident one another girl, namely, Prity Kumari, who had also received injury was carried to hospital. She succumbed to the injury in the hospital. The third girl, namely, Nirjala Kumari, who has been examined as C.W. 4 before the Claims Tribunal, had also sustained injury a,nd before the Claims Tribunal, she made categorical statement to show that accident had occurred completely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the impugned Judgment and Award on any other ground. In view of the fact that the deceased was dashed by Pick-up Van, which was driven rashly and negligently, there was no reason for the court below to come to a conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence. The plea, which has been taken by the insurer/appellant before the Claims Tribunal, was totally misconceived. In view of the fact that the deceased was dashed by Pick-up Van, which was driven rashly and negligently, there was no reason for the court below to come to a conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence. The plea, which has been taken by the insurer/appellant before the Claims Tribunal, was totally misconceived. Even though, there was specific material on record to show rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the insurer had taken an unsustainable plea. It was not end on the part of the appellant/insurer, but in the case, where the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation amount on the basis of notional income as prescribed in Schedule-II of the M.V. Act and directed for payment of amount to the tune of Rs.2,29,500/-, the insurer of the vehicle, which in ordinary course is required to honour the award passed in such cases, preferred to file the present appeal without any ground for interference with the impugned order. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that the present appeal was preferred without any reason, only with a view to restrain the claimants to get the compensation amount at the earliest. The order in the claim case was passed in the year 2008 and till today i.e. after lapse of several years, the claimants have been deprived to get the compensation amount. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Award and the appeal stands dismissed. 7. Before parting with the Judgment, it would be required to pass an order for enhancement of the rate of interest so that the insurer/appellant must feel that ill such frivolous ground, the insurer may not prefer any appeal and, as such, rate of interest, which was directed by the Claims Tribunal i.e. 6% per annum, is directed to be enhanced @ 10% per annum and interest @ 10% per annum is required to be paid to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition before the court below. The amount of compensation in compliance with the Judgment and Award of the Claims Tribunal alongwith interest, as indicated above, must be paid to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. With above observation and direction, the appeal stands dismissed. 9. The amount of compensation in compliance with the Judgment and Award of the Claims Tribunal alongwith interest, as indicated above, must be paid to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. With above observation and direction, the appeal stands dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, statutory amount, which was deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal, is directed to be remitted back to the court below, so that the amount may be paid to the claimants.