Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 107 (TRI)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rahimun Nessa

2022-03-08

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Section 168 of the Act ibid, against the impugned judgment and award dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Unakoti Judicial District Kailashahar, in Case No. T.S.(MAC) No.08 of 2019. 2. The brief facts are that, on 23.12.2015, at about 7.00 hours, the deceased-Tayab Ali proceeded from his residence to Kailashahar town boarding on the offending vehicle (Auto-rickshaw) bearing registration No. TR.02-B-3496. When the said vehicle reached near Kubjar, the said auto rickshaw capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. As a result of said accident, Tayab Ali sustained severe injuries, and immediately he was shifted to RGM Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., which is a Government of India undertaking was impleaded as the insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-02-B-3496 (Auto Rickshaw) in the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the case No.T.S. (MAC) No. 08 of 2019 claiming compensation of Rs.32,40,000/- for the death of Tayab Ali in the above-mentioned accident occurred on 23.12.2015 at about 7.00 hours. 4. The owner-respondent i.e. the O.P. No. 2 of the vehicle bearing No.TR-02-B-3496 though appeared but failed to submit written statement and by order dated 31.05.2019, the owner was barred from filing written statement. 5. The appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. appeared and contested the case by filing written statement denying and disputing the averments made in the claim petition stating that the claimant-petitioners in that T.S. (MAC) No.8 of 2019 are not entitled to any compensation claimed by the claimants. The appellant insurance Company also denied the profession and monthly income on the date and time of the accident. The appellant-insurance company also denied the accident and injuries sustained by the deceased-Tayab Ali. Finally, the appellant-insurance company denied the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-02-B-3496(Auto Rickshaw) with the alleged accident. 6. The learned Tribunal fastened the entire liability of the compensation of Rs.10,59,594/- against the appellant-insurance Company along with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and directed the appellant-insurance company to satisfy the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of judgment and award. 7. 6. The learned Tribunal fastened the entire liability of the compensation of Rs.10,59,594/- against the appellant-insurance Company along with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and directed the appellant-insurance company to satisfy the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of judgment and award. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 10.06.2020, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Unakoti District, Kailashahar in Case No.T.S. (MAC) 08 of 2019, the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal and prayed for the following reliefs:- 'a) Admit the appeal b) Call for the case records from the learned Tribunal below; c) Stay the operation of the impugned judgment and award dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Case No.T.S.(MAC) o8 of 2019 and the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Tribunal not to proeed with the execution proceeding if any filed by the claimant respondents in the mean time till disposal of the present appeal. d) After hearing the parties be pleased enough to set aside/quash the impugned judgment and award dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Case No.T.S. (MAC) No.08 of 2019.' 8. Heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company. None appears for the respondents. 9. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal most illegally and in an arbitrary and mechanical manner by his own whims and fancies fastened the entire liability of the compensation upon the appellant insurance company which does not stand in law and is liable to be interfered by the Hon'ble High Court for ends of justice and to protect the unnecessary drainage of public exchequer. 10. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel further advanced his argument on the point of non-filing of proof of service as well as the pension document of the deceased as the same were not before the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal considered the submission of the P.W.-1 and fixed the notional amount of pension at Rs.14,438/- per month which the appellant-insurance company disputes. 11. Considered the arguments of learned counsel as well as perused the evidence on record and the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. 12. However, the learned Tribunal considered the submission of the P.W.-1 and fixed the notional amount of pension at Rs.14,438/- per month which the appellant-insurance company disputes. 11. Considered the arguments of learned counsel as well as perused the evidence on record and the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. 12. The Apex Court time and again in many cases have fixed notional amount award at Rs.10,000/-and even above in the absence of proof of income. In the context of the present case, I may refer to the Apex Court judgment of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & anr., vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr., bearing registration No. Civil Appeal No.6902 of 2021, wherein, the Apex Court has fixed Rs.25,000/- as the notional income. So, fixing notional income at Rs.10,000/- or above in this instant matter is just and proper. 13. Motor Accident Claim Appeal is a beneficial legislation. In the present matter, the deceased person happens to be a retired Government employee and the same contention has not been negated by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company before the learned Tribunal. It is also not disputed that the deceased person has been survived with his widow and his children. So, the deceased used to maintain himself and the above family members. So, in the above scenario, it cannot be said that the deceased person should be having income not less than the amount that has been fixed by the learned Tribunal towards his monthly income i.e. Rs.14,438/-. 14. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal as the same is just and proper. 15. Accordingly, this instant appeal stands dismissed and thus disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.