Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 302 (TRI)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ronini roy

2015-06-01

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the award dated 11th November, 2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,59,000/- in favour of the claimants. [2] The claimant is the mother of the deceased, Abhijit Roy. It is not disputed that Abhijit Roy died as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. It is also not disputed that he was 22 years of age at the time when the accident occurs. [3] As per the material on record, it is apparent that the vehicle in question was being driven by Krishnapada Das who was respondent No.1 before the learned trial Court. The vehicle is also owned by Krishnapada Das. The FIR which has been lodged on 2nd June, 2011 immediately after the accident depicts that on the night intervening 1.6.2011 and 2.6.2011 at about 10.00 pm on 01.06.2011 Sandip Das the informant of the FIR along with 4(four) friends started for Udaipur Matabari tample. It is alleged that at about 12.30 midnight the motor cycle belonging to the Krishnapada Das bearing registration No.TR-01K-6501 met with an accident and on a bridge of Parimal Chowmuhani and the persons on the motor cycle hit the barricade on the bridge and banged against the pipes on the barricade. The three persons travelling on the motor cycle, namely, Krishnapada Das who was driving the motor cycle, Saikat Acharjee and Abhijit Roy were taken to the Bishalgarh hospital for treatment. Abhijit Roy was declared dead at that time itself. I have been informed at the bar that Saikat Acharjee also died and a claim petition was filed on account of the death of Saikat Acharjee and in that case an award was made and same has been satisfied by the insurance company. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and after adding 50% towards future prospects assessed the compensation by applying multiplier of 18. [4] Sri Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the insurance company has challenged the award basically on the two grounds. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and after adding 50% towards future prospects assessed the compensation by applying multiplier of 18. [4] Sri Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the insurance company has challenged the award basically on the two grounds. His first ground is that on a motor cycle there can only be two persons, one driver and one pillion rider who can legally ride a motor cycle and that the insurance company could only be asked to satisfy one award and since it has satisfied one award it cannot be held liable to satisfy the second or any subsequent awards. It is also urged that without there being any proof of income the income has wrongly been assessed at Rs.7,000/- per month. [5] On the other hand, Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the insurance company cannot be permitted to raise this plea of it not being liable in view of the fact that in the policy in question the seating capacity of the vehicle including driver has been shown to be 2 + 1 which would mean that one driver plus two pillion riders are covered under the terms of the policy. It is by now settled law that the insurance company is only liable to pay compensation in respect of persons who can be legally carried on a motor vehicle or the persons for whom coverage has been granted under the terms of the policy. If this clause showing the seating capacity of 2 + 1 were not there then there would have been force in the submission of Mr. Bhattacharji. In that event the law is settled that the insurance company must satisfy those claims where the amount is largest and in fact I was proceeding to decide the case by deducting the amount already paid by the insurance company in the case of Mr. Saikat Acharjee. However, on going through the policy I find that the seating capacity is mentioned as 2+1. No doubt, it is true, as urged by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the seating capacity of a motor cycle cannot be 2 + 1 and it is always 1 + 1. [6] Be that as it may, the insurance company in its policy has clearly stated that the capacity was 2+1. No doubt, it is true, as urged by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the seating capacity of a motor cycle cannot be 2 + 1 and it is always 1 + 1. [6] Be that as it may, the insurance company in its policy has clearly stated that the capacity was 2+1. Under an Act Policy the insurance company is liable to cover that liability which is compulsory under the Act and for which provisions are made in Section 147 and Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, there is nothing in law which prevents an insurance company from covering wider liability. The insurance company can if it so feels agree to cover liability even where the driver does not have a valid driving licence. Supposing in the policy there is a clause that the insurance company will be liable whether the driving licence is valid or not then the insurance company cannot take the plea that the person who has driving the vehicle did not have valid driving licence. In this claim petition none has appeared from the insurance company to depose in the matter. It has been stated that in the other case of Saikat Acharjee the Manager of the insurance company did appear in the witness box. In that case also the claim was settled by the insurance company. That was no doubt the first claim and the insurance company would have been liable to settle at least one claim. The question is how can be insurance company get out of the policy if in the certificate of insurance the seating capacity is shown to be 2+1. Only the certificate of insurance has been produced and the terms of policy have not been produced. The certificate of insurance shows that the coverage is for 2+1 i.e. 3 persons. Therefore, I am clearly of the view that though legally the insurance company may not be bound to give such coverage in view of the terms of the policy as reflected in the certificate of insurance, in this particular case the insurance company has taken additional liability to cover two pillion riders. [7] Therefore, I find that the insurance company could be held liable to pay the compensation. [8] As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned the deceased was a graduate. [7] Therefore, I find that the insurance company could be held liable to pay the compensation. [8] As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned the deceased was a graduate. It is also urged that he had done one course in computers which is from Renesas Computer Centre. This is not a degree or recognized diploma in computers but it is an ordinary computer course which any child in this day and age will do. The story of the claimant that the petitioner was working at a tutor and teaching people in computers cannot be believed on the basis of this certificate which is in the nature of a diploma and it is not clear that whether this diploma is recognized by any university or governmental organization. Therefore, I will proceed to assess the compensation on the basis that the deceased was a graduate and knew how to use computers. There are large number of unemployed youth in the State of Tripura and at the age of 22 when the complainant was not even employed his income even if fixed notionally in the year 2011 when the accident took place in my opinion could not have been fixed more than at Rs.5,000/- per month and adding 50% of future scope I assess the income at Rs.7,500/- per month. 50% is deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased leaving the disposable income at Rs.3750/- per month or Rs.45,000/- per year, applying a multiplier of 18 the compensation works out to Rs.8,10,000/-. On this amount the claimant shall also be entitled to funeral expenses of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/- for loss of her son. Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs.8,80,000/-. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest on this amount @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount in the Registry of this Court within four months from today. [9] In view of the above discussions, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation is reduced from Rs.11,59,000/- to Rs.8,80,000/- with interest as aforesaid. [10] The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Send down the lower Court records forthwith.