AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Sinha, J.—The appellant in this appeal has questioned the correctness or otherwise of the Award dated 8-4-1996 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 194 of 1994. The fact of the matter is that on 15-1-94 Sukul Chhetri (victim) was driving the Vehicle No. WGY-6219 from Siliguri to Banarghat, when he met with an accident as another vehicle coming from Malbazar side which was being driven at a very high speed dashed with his vehicle. The said Sukul Chhetri died at the spot. The learned Tribunal having regard to the assertions made in the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :
1) Is the petition maintainable ?
2) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Vehicle No. WB-25/1771 ?
3) Is the O.P. - Insurance liable to pay compensation on behalf of the owner ?
4) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation prayed for ?
The learned tribunal arrived at the finding that the deceased Sukul Chhetri died in a motor accident and that Me was not at fault.
Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Counsel appearing On behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a compensation of RS. 1,77,900/-. The learned Counsel further submitted that having regard to the fact that two vehicles were involved in-the accident and the victim having been found not to be at fault, the learned Tribunal below erred in awarding compensation against the appellant. In any event, contends the learned Counsel, the learned Tribunal below could not have granted interest and in support of the said contention strong reliance has been placed upon Supreme Court decision in T. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1995(1) ACJ 366.
So far as the first contention raised by the learned Counsel is concerned, the same is covered by recent decision of the Apex Court in Shankarayya and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, and Chinnama George & Ors. vs. N. K. Raju & Anr., reported in 2000 AIR SCW 1321. The same view has been taken by various division benches of this court including United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Namita Das and Others, and United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Smritikona Mistri and Others, wherein it has clearly been held that an Insurance Company Is not entitled to maintain an appeal on any ground apart from the ground contained in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
So far as the second contention is concerned, it is now well settled that the learned Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant compensation even in a case where two vehicles were Involved. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Karnataka High Court in a Full Bench in Ganesh vs. Syed Munned Ahmed & Ors., reported In 1999(2) ACC 9 (FB) which has been followed by this Court in F.M.A 400 of 1999 (The National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hashnehara Bibi & Ors.) disposed of on 14-6-2000.
In that view of the matter the second contention raised by Mr. Das also has no force.
As regard the question of interest, we are of the opinion the decision of the Apex Court in R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Put Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1995(1) ACJ 366 has no application in the facts of the case.
In the instant case the fact is that no compensation has been awarded towards future loss of earning. For the reasons aforementioned we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal which is accoridngly dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.
H. Banerji, J.
I agree.