MACA/1200/2016 of MANAGER,LEGAL,M/S.BAJAJ ALLIANZ G.I.CO.LTD. Vs KAMBALA SAROJINI on 22 December 2017

Arguments

MACA No.1200 of 2016

22.12.2017Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the judgment/award dated 05.07.2016, passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jajpur, in MAC Case No.156 of 2013, awarding an amount of Rs.32,19,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim application i.e.16.12.2013, till payment. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that as the accident took place on 09.8.2013 and the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day against an unknown Truck and the alleged offending vehicle (Truck) bearing no.OR-21-A/0078 was seized at a later stage on 27.11.2013, more than 3 months after the alleged accident, on being produced by the owner of offending Truck, it is a clear case of the offending vehicle being planted at a belated stage with the connivance of the owner and the police officials for the purpose of availing compensation. It is submitted that in order to substantiate the fact that the alleged offending Truck was in no way involved in the alleged accident, the Insurance Company had produced a Compact Disc (C.D.), which was certified by the Forensic Science Laboratory and marked as Ext.D, wherein the conversation between the owner of the offending Truck and the accused driver with the investigator of the Insurance Company and how one advocate took the driving licence of the accused driver by paying him Rs.8,000/- was recorded. It is further submitted that as the accused driver admitted in the said C.D. that he was not driving the alleged offending Truck at the time of accident and that one advocate had taken his driving licence in lieu of Rs.8,000/-, learned Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the same and holding that the alleged offending Truck was involved in the accident and saddling the liability on the present appellant, as the insurer of the offending Truck. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards general damages, which is on the higher side. It is accordingly submitted that the assessment of the compensation amount is not proper and justified and the award is highly excessive.

Learned counsel for the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 3 while supporting the impugned award submits that the same having been passed on appreciation of the evidence available on record, no interference is warranted.

On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, including the police papers, especially the charge-sheet (Ext.2), which was submitted by the police after investigation against the accused driver of the offending Truck, in coming to hold that the accused driver was rash and negligent in causing the accident, which resulted in the death of Kambala Ram Rao. Since the video recorded in the C.D. is disputable, as no statement has been recorded by the police in support of the same, learned Tribunal has proceeded to reject the same and hold that the driver of the offending Truck no.OR-21-A/0078 was rash and negligent in causing the accident, which resulted in the death of deceased Kambala Ram Rao. As the offending Truck was covered under a valid policy of insurance and the accused driver had an effective driving licence, learned Tribunal has saddled the liability on the present appellant, as the insurer of the offending Truck, to pay the compensation award.

Issues

Coming to the assessment of the compensation amount, it is seen that the claimants had claimed that the deceased was working as a Branch in-charge of Vereet India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, having its site office at Paradeep since 18.8.2010, with a salary of Rs.23,290/- per month. In support of such claim, the claimants had produced the pay slip (Exts.25 to 25/b), the copy of the appointment letter (Ext.26), the copy of the Income Tax return (Ext.27) and the Salary Certificate (Ext.9). Learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the documents produced in support of income of the deceased and the evidence of P.W.3, who has been examined to prove the above documents, in coming to hold that the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.23,900/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and taking the age of the deceased to be 33 years at the time of his accidental death, as per the Post Mortem Report (Ext.8), learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 to calculate the loss of dependency. Since the deceased was not in a stable job with a fixed salary, no award has been passed towards his future prospects. Learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards general damages.

Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the quantum of compensation amount awarded and the basis on which the same has been arrived at, I feel, the interest of justice would be best served, if the awarded compensation amount of Rs.32,19,000/- is modified and reduced to Rs.20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lakh), which is payable to the claimants along with the awarded interest. The impugned award is modified to the said extent. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified compensation amount of Rs.20,00,000/- along with the awarded interest with the learned Tribunal within six weeks hence. On deposit of the amount, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants proportionately, as per the direction of the learned Tribunal in the impugned award.

The statutory amount deposited in the Registry of this Court along with the accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company, on production of receipt showing deposit of the modified compensation amount and interest with the Tribunal. MACA is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(S.C.PARIJA, J.)