Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Manjula Mishra and Others

Nunumani Prasad Singh, J.—This appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited u/s 100D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of Motor Vehicles Tribunal dated 15.4.1988 whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- has been awarded to the claimant.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 29.7.1983, Sivesh Mishra was going to Lohardaga on a scooter bearing registration No. BHV 4783 as a pillion rider and as soon as the scooter reached near Chiri Bridge truck bearing registration No. BHV 9222 coming from the opposite direction being driven in rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter causing severe injuries to Sivesh Mishra, the pillion rider of the scooter. Sivesh Mishra was removed to Lohardaga Hospital, then to Ranchi Medical College Hospital where he died in course of the treatment on 10.8.1983 leaving behind his widow arid a minor son. The deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of his death and he was a student of law at Chhotanagpur Law College, Ranchi. The deceased had also taken a loan under the self employment scheme from a Bank and had purchased a Maxi-Taxi No. BPN 8303 and was earning Rs. 1500/- per month from the Maxi-Taxi. The claimant--Respondent filed a petition u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal, Ranchi claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- besides Rs. 15,000/- the expenditure incurred over the treatment and Rs. 10,000/- towards the funeral. and Sarad.

Pursuant to the notice the appellant and the Respondent IInd party appeared and contested the claim. Learned Claims Tribunal on consideration of the evidence awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the claimant and the appellant Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filling of the claim case within three months and in default to pay interest @ 18% per annum.

The Claimant-Respondent has also filed cross-objection against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

Shri A.K. Sahni, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the liability of the appellant Oriental Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant-Insurance Company is, therefore, not liable to pay compensation beyond its liability of Rs. 50,000/-.

It appears that no evidence was led on behald of the appellant--Insurance Company or by the owner of the vehicle in rebuttal to the evidence of the claimant-Respondent. The driver of the offending truck bearing registration No. BHV 9222 has also not been examined. The evidence of A.W. 2 Narendra Deo Mishra that he was present at the site of the accident at the relevant time when the truck bearing registration No. BHV 9222 had dashed against the scooter on which the deceased was going towards the Lohardaga as a pillion rider stands unrebutted. Therefore, the case of the Claimant-Respondent that the offending truck bearing registration No. BHV 9222 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner has to be accepted.

It is admitted that the offending truck bearing registration No. BHV 9222 and Scooter No. BHV 4783 were insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

Learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent has contended that the appeal against the quantum of compensation preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company is not maintainable. The contention of learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent is well founded.

A Bench of this Court in the case of The Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Yuktinath Jha and Others, has held that an Insurance Company cannot be allowed to challenge the amount of compensation awarded except when the amount exceeds the statutory limit. Similar view was also expressed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Molia Devi and others,

From perusal of the Insurance policy of the offending truck it appears that the liability of the Insurance Company was to the extent of Rs. 1,80,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has, however, awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- below the liability undertaken by the Insurance Company. The appeal is, therefore, maintainable.

As regards the cross-objection is concerned, it appears that the deceased was very industrious and was the earning member of the family while he was presenting the study of Law. He had a promising career. The deceased was a man of status and one of his brother A.W.1 is a Judicial Officer. The deceased died at the premature age of about 29 years. In the case of Yotsna Devi v. State of Assam 1987(1) T.A.C. 157 the Supreme Court has held that expectancy of life in India has gone to 70 years. This was further reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeo Kaur and others Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and another,

Keeping in view the social status, industriousness and bright career of the deceased, the compensation awarded to the claimant-respondent is enhanced from Rs. 1,35,000/- to Rs. 1,80,000/-. The appellant--Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimant-respondent within three months from today together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the claims petition u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

With this modification in the award the cross-objection is allowed in part and the appeal is dismissed but without costs.