The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shiv Narain Sahani and Others

Dr. J.N. Bhatt, C.J.—After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, as well as, the ratio propounded in the decision rendered in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, , the amendment petition filed on behalf of respondent ho. 1, on the analogous principles of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it shall stand allowed. By this appeal, the appellant Oriental Insurance Company has assailed the award passed by the Claim Tribunal-cum2nd Additional District Judge, Darbhanga, in Claim Case No. 15 of 1995, dated 31.1.2002, whereby, the claim petition came to be granted and an amount of Rs. 2,68,200/- with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment by way of compensation for the premature demise of the wife of the original claimant, respondent No. 1 herein, was awarded for the reasons stated therein.

It is true, that the claim for the loss of life of the wife was for Rs. 2,00,000/-(two lakhs). The life of the wife of respondent No. 1 was cut short at the cruel hands of the providence in a vehicular accident which occurred on 15,6.1995, near Outer Gate of Private Bus Stand, Police Station, Lalit Narain Mithila University, District Darbhanga at about 11 A.M., wherein, a bus was involved which was being driven by original opponent No. 2 Sunil Kumar Karn and it was owned by original opponent No. 1 Om Prakash Bharti which was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, original opponent No. 3 and appellant before this Court. Respondent No. 1 is the husband of the deceased Mohani Devi, whereas, respondents 2 to 7 are minor children of the deceased who sustained fatal injury and died at the spot. She was working as a hawker and selling green fruits and fishes. She was aged about 38 years at the time of unfortunate demise. Since the factum of accident was not in question and she was a third party and negligence having thus been established on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the death of Mohani Devi was on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus involved in the accident.

insofar as, the quantification of damages has been concerned, the Tribunal has considered the material principles of law in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as, the guidelines provided in the structured formula in Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 2,68,200/- which in the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as, considering the principles of law of tort and the structured formula guidelines is quite just and reasonable requiring no interference in this appeal.

Since the initial claim for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was sought to be enhanced in course of the appeal by giving an application for amendment in the application on the analogous principles of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C, it has been granted keeping in mind the principles of law enunciated in the case of "Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. (supra)".

Learned counsel for the appellant insurer has drawn the attention of this Court to the observations of the Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the award. It is contended that it is observed that the Insurance Company, in view of the case law reported in AIR 1998 SC 588 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indrajit Kaur and Ors.) becomes liable to make compensation to the claimant in such a case where allegedly the driver was not holding valid licence. In this context, it is further submitted that the Tribunal has observed that the Insurance Company may realise the amount of compensation from the owner if there was any breach or laches on the part of the owner. Since there is no appeal at the instance of the insurer the rights and liability of the parties, obviously, shall stand governed by the observations made by the Tribunal as there is no question of going into the merits of those observations upon a consensus of the parties.

The amount if deposited by the appellant towards the amount of compensation awarded or the deposit of the amount as prerequisite for filing an appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, shall stand transmitted to the Tribunal concerned.

The Registry shall see that the said amount is transferred early. Upon such an amount being transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, it will be open for it to pass appropriate oders for disbursement in terms of the award for the best interest of the parties upon due verification and identification. If any amount is shortfall, the Insurance Company through its counsel undertakes to pay the remaining amount towards the amount of compensation awarded in terms of the award under challenge in this appeal within a period of six weeks with proportionate costs and interest. In the result, this appeal shall stand dismissed with the aforesaid observations.