AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Das, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The appellant insurer has called in question the award passed by the 5th M.A.C.T. Nayagarh in MAC No. 56 of 2006 on 29.7.2008.
Mr. N.S. Ghose, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that a head on collision occurred between a Truck and a Indica Car. The deceased was travelling in the Indica Car. The appellant is the insurer of the truck, which was involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal should have considered as to what extent each of the vehicles was responsible for the accident cause. According to him, the care involves a question of composite negligence and the appellant cannot be solely made liable to pay compensation amount.
A bare perusal of the impugned award shows that no such case is made out by the appellant even in its written statement filed before the Tribunal. The plea taken by the appellant before the Tribunal was that in the absence of any policy particulars, the insurer is not liable to pay any amount as compensation. It was also stated in the written statement that no accident has been caused due to the sole negligence of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-26-D-1062. The income of the deceased as stated in the claim application was also disputed.
To make out a case in respect of composite negligence, law requires that there must be specific pleading and evidence. In the instant case, neither such a case is made out nor has any evidence been adduced in that regard I, therefore, negative the contentions raised by Mr. Ghose and confirm the finding of the Tribunal that the applicant-insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount.
With regard to quantum of compensation as assessed, Mr. Ghose, learned Counsel for the appellant relying upon the decision in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Ors. v. Mohd. Jameel and Anr. 2009 (1) TAC 794, rendered by the Apex Court, submits that the Supreme Court in the said case on the question of deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased, has observed that in the absence of any evidence contrary to the policy conditions as to what deduction should be made towards personal expenses and living expenses of the deceased, 1/3rd of the income in case he was married and 1/2 of the income if he was a bachelor, can be deducted. He, therefore, impresses upon this Court that the Tribunal should have taken 50% of the income of the deceased to be the contribution towards family. However, on perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the Supreme Court has clearly observed that on the question of deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased, there is no set formula which could be applied in every case to determine as to what would be the deduction on this account. Further, it appears that in the present case also, there was no evidence adduced by the insurer or any of the parties to show that the contribution of the deceased to the family was less than 2/3rd of his income. Hence, I do not find any reason to accept the said contention made by Mr. Ghose.
Considering all aspects of the matter and the materials available on record, I find that an amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs (Rupees six lakhs) along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application would be the just compensation. The above amount along with interest shall be payable to the claimants as compensation. Such amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. On such deposit being made, an amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years jointly in the names of the parents of the deceased and the balance amount of No. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) along with interest accrued on the total amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs from the date of application till the date of payment shall be disbursed in favour of the parents of the deceased. On a certificate being filed before this Court showing deposit of the compensation amount before the Tribunal, the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court along with interest accrued thereon shall be refunded to the appellant-insurer.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the M.A.C.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.