AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is an appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short “the Act”) by the appellants-claimants against the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2024 passed in MAC Case No.85 of 2023, by which the learned 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhenkanal (in short “the tribunal”) directed the Respondent No.2-M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. (In short “the insurer”) to pay compensation of Rs.15,10,000/- only with simple interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of claim on 16.06.2023 till its actual realization to the Appellants-claimants.
The facts being not disputed is not reiterated to avoid repetition. The appellants-claimants, however, challenges the impugned judgment on the quantum of compensation, but the liability of paying compensation to the claimants have never been questioned by the R-2.
Heard Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Mr. Bijay Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for insurer-cum-Respondent No.2.
None appears for the R1 at the time of call, however, he was set exparte in the proceeding before the tribunal and he has not challenged the judgment nor the liability of paying the compensation to the claimant has been questioned by R2 by filing any separate appeal and the award has already been satisfied by the insurer. In the circumstance, issuance of notice against R1 stands ignored and dispensed with.
After having considered the rival submission and making a thorough discussion and negotiation with the learned counsel for the parties keeping in view the challenge of the appellants as to the quantum of compensation, this Court proposes a consolidated sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs) as enhancement of compensation to the claimants towards full and final settlement of the case and seeks the response of the learned counsel for the parties, to which learned counsel for the claimants-appellants by filing a memo agrees and accepts the proposal, but Mr. Bijoy Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-cum-insurer without disputing such proposal leaves it to the discretion and conscience of this Court.
In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into account the law laid down by Apex court in Taslim Parvin & Another vrs. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another; 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC), since the appellants agree to the proposal of the Court through their counsel and the counsel for the respondent-insurer without disputing such proposal leaves it to the discretion of the Court, it is considered that interest of justice would be best served, if the compensation amount is further enhanced by Rs.9,00,000/- which shall be payable by the insurer-R2 to the appellants-claimants.
In the result, the appeal is accordingly disposed of with direction to R-2-cum-insurer to pay a further sum of Rs.9,00,000/- within eight weeks hence. In case of deposit of the enhanced compensation amount, the same shall be disbursed to the appellants-claimants proportionately in terms of the impugned judgment. Needless to say, proper Court fee payable on enhanced compensation be realized from the appellants.