9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tta, respondent No. 1, is the owner of the bus and Ajay Baruah, respondent No. 2 herein, was driving the offending bus, when it met with an accident. The bus was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited- respondent No.3. The car of the deceased was not insured as he had purchased it hardly a day or two before the accident. The appellant-Bijoy Kumar Dugar and his wife-Smt. Panna Devi Dugar [now dead] were the original claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT'), Tinsukia. They claimed a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents. The MACT, relying upon the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and Ajay Baruah, driver-respondent No. 2, both were driving their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and the accident was as a result of their contributory negligence for which the insurer respondent No. 3 was liable to pay half of the amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 1,76,800/-, to the claimants. It also directed that the amount of compensation as awarded be paid with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel appearing for the contesting respondent on the other hand, has sought to support the orders of the High Court. He submitted that this Court, in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, would ordinarily not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the MACT and affirmed by the High Court. To appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the relevant material on record. It is by now well-settled that the compensation should be the pecuniary loss to the dependants by the death of a person concerned. While calculating the compensation, annual dependency of the dependants should be determined in terms of the annual loss, according to them, due to the abrupt termination of life. To determine the quantum of compensation, the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount, which the deceased was spending for the dependants, are the basic determinative factors. The resultant figure should then be multiplied by a `multiplier'. The multiplier is applied not for the entire span of life of a person, but it is applied taking into consideration the imponderables in life, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oy of 24 years old, was unmarried and the claimants were his father and mother, the dependency has to be calculated on the basis that within two or three years the deceased would have married and raised family and the monthly allowance he was giving to his parents would have been cut down. Thus, in our view, the MACT has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. We have gone through the ratio of the above decisions relied upon by the claimants in support of the submission for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. In G.M., Kerala SRTC's case (supra), the claimants have satisfactorily proved on record that the deceased person in that case had a more or less stable job in the newspaper establishment of Malayala Manorama on a monthly salary of Rs. 1032/-. On the basis of the evidence found on record in regard to the prospects of the advancement in the future career of the deceased, this Court has made higher estimate of monthly income at Rs. 2,000/- per month as the gross income and granted relief to the claimants. In Sarla Dixit's case, the widow and minor daughter of Captain Ramakant Dixit who died in the accident filed claim petition before the Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in issue. However, we have noticed the reasoning and finding of the MACT recorded under Issue No.2. It is the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Gupta-P.W.2 who was travelling in the Maruti car along with the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar on the day of the accident that he also suffered some injuries in the said accident. He stated that while coming from Digboi, the Maruti car being driven by the deceased met with an accident at a place near Kharjan Pol. Before the accident, Raj Kumar Dugar noticed a passenger bus coming from the opposite direction and the movement of the bus was not normal as it was coming in a zigzag manner. The Maruti car being driven by the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and the offending bus had a head- on collision. The MACT has not accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 to prove that the driver of the offending bus was driving the vehicle in abnormal speed. If the bus was being driven by the driver abnormally in a zigzag manner, as P.W. 2 wanted to believe the Court, it was, but natural, as a prudent man for the deceased to have taken due care and precaution to avoid head-on collision when he had already seen the bus from a long distance coming from the opposite direction. It was head- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company and quashed the Award of the MACT to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to interest only for a period of two years, i.e. from the date of the appearance of the Insurance Company on 10th January, 1989 to October, 1990 when it filed the written statement. Being aggrieved against the said order of the High Court, the claimants have filed this appeal contending that the writ petition of the Insurance Company against the award of interest on the amount of compensation by the MACT was not maintainable when it had not obtained the right to contest the proceedings on merit under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, the High Court modified the Award of the MACT to the extent that the Insurance Company is only liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of compensation from 10th January, 1989 to October 1990, when it filed written statement to the claim petition and prior to those dates the insurer was not at fault. It is not in dispute that the right of appeal is a statutory right to the parties and where the law provides a remedy by filing an appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
