CIVIL APPEAL 136 of 2000 on 18 January 2000

By consent of the parties, both the appeals aretaken up for hearing analogously, as both the appeals aredirected against the common judgment and award.

Both the appeals are directed against the commonjudgement and award dated 31.07.2010, passed by the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, 9thCourt, Alipore in M.A.C. Case No. 136 of 2000 (M.A.C.Case No.47 of 2009) on a claim under Section 166 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation for thedeath of Smt. ‘Anita Ray (Mukherjee)’ in a vehicularaccident dated January 18, 2000.

The Appeals are taken up for hearingsimultaneously to avoid conflict of decisions. The accidentleading to the filing of these two appeals, involves twoseparate vehicles. In first of such appeals, being FMA 238of 2011 filed by United India Insurance Company Limited,the insurer of one of the offending vehicles, challenges theimposition of entire liability of satisfaction of award on itand questions the exoneration of The New India Assurance Company Limited, being the insurer of other involvedvehicle in the accident, from any liability. In this appeal,United India also assails the quantum assessed.

The other appeal, being FMA 708 of 2011 is filedby the claimants for enhancement of compensation amountunder various heads.

Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari, the learned Advocateappearing for United India Insurance Company Limitedcontends that although two vehicles were involved in theaccident, learned Tribunal erred in fastening the entireliability upon United India Insurance Company Limited andexonerating The New India Assurance Company Limited.He also states that the quantum assessed by the learnedTribunal, is on the higher side.

Mr. Rajesh Singh, the learned Counselrepresenting The New India Assurance Company Limited,argues that the direction of the Learned Tribunal in respectof fixing the liability to pay the entire compensation byUnited India Insurance Company Limited is justified andcannot be interfered with as the vehicle (Oil Tanker) insuredwith ‘United India’ was solely responsible for the accident.He further submits that the other vehicle, being Bus No.WBR-2735 insured with ‘New India’ was stationary at thetime of accident and had no role to play in the accident. Hefurther submits that the compensation awarded by thelearned Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is nofurther scope of enhancement of the same.

Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, the learned Counsel for theclaimants prays for enhancement of the compensationamount.

Upon hearing the Ld. Advocates and going throughthe materials on record, I find that the Learned Tribunalrightly imposed the entire liability upon United IndiaInsurance Company Limited. The other vehicle, insured withThe New India, was stationary. The Oil Tanker insured withUnited India Insurance Company Limited was rash andnegligent and solely responsible for the accident. In view ofthe aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the impugnedorder does not require any interference on the point of fixingof liability. The appeal of the insurer, being FMA 238 of2011 is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

At this stage, Mr. Pahari, the learned Advocate for‘United India Insurance Company Limited’ submits that hisclient has already deposited the entire awarded sum ofRs.29,50,000/- with the learned Registrar General of thisCourt in the year 2011. The said amount has been invested ina short term interest bearing fixed deposit. It is alsosubmitted that in terms of further direction of this Court,claimants have already withdrawn Rs.15,00,000/- from thesaid deposit.

The accident is of the year 2000. Now, theclaimants agree to withdraw the balance principal sum ofRs.14,50,000/- along with all accrued interest from the officeof the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta. Accordingly,the claimants/respondents shall furnish particulars of theirrespective Bank accounts with the Registrar General of thisCourt as expeditiously as possible. Upon receipt of suchdetails, the Registrar General is directed to pay the aforesaiddeposited amount along with accrued interest, directly intothe claimants’ bank account, in accordance with law and inthe same proportion as decided by the Court below within a period of four weeks. The Registrar General shall check theveracity of the bank accounts and the identity of theclaimants before disbursing the amounts.

With the aforesaid directions, both the aboveappeals being FMA 238 of 2011 and FMA 708 of 2011 aredisposed of.

In view of the disposal of the appeals, connectedapplications, if any, are also disposed of. The concernedDepartment is directed to tag the applications, if any, withthe main appeals.

There shall be no further order as to costs.

LCR, if any, may be returned back to the courtbelow.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, ifapplied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of allformalities, on priority basis.

( Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)