AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R. K. Dutta and Mr. M. Dutta on behalf of the respondent No. 1,3,4 to 6.
The present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 13.6.2013 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 2985 of 2008 awarding and amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- to the respondents.
Briefly stated the case of the respondent is that a claim case was registered on the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent for the death of
one Sarifur Rahman, who was Line Man of ASEB, posted at Samaguri on 17.9.2008 while he was standing in the place of work as Gatanga, on the
National Highway, suddenly a vehicle bearing No. AS-01/W-6363 came at a high speed and knocked down the said person, as a result of which he
died on the spot. Raising the grievances that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle, the aforesaid claim
petition was preferred praying for compensation for the death of the said person Sarifur Rahman. It is stated that he used to earn Rs. 15,573/- per
month and he was aged about 45 years at the time of his death.
Notice was issued to the driver, owner and the insurer company of the said vehicle and except the insurance company, other persons did not turn to
contest the proceeding so case proceeded exparte against the driver and owner/respondent No. 2 and 3 only the insurance company/ Opposite Party
No. 1 filed their written statement, denied all the allegations raised in the claimed petition. The insurance company although admitted about the
accident but denied the liability, if there was any violation of condition of the insurance policy. The learned Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties
framed necessary issues and examined all the witnesses and finally on the basis of such oral and documentary evidence on record came to a finding
that the claimant has been able to prove the fact that due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle the accident took place and the person died.
There was no rebuttal evidence as against the said evidence of the claimant side as the offending vehicle duly issued by the National Insurance
Company so the National Insurance Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation. While awarding such compensation
the Ld. Tribunal has taken into account the net salary of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month after statutory reduction and took the multiplier as 13,
taking into account the age of the deceased as mentioned in the service book.
The Insurance Company has preferred the appeal on accounts that the Tribunal has erred by calculating the multiplier as the victim was more than
50 years at the time of his death, whereas the Tribunal has taken as 50 years. The next ground that was taken is about the delay in filing the FIR and
no explanation thereof. Another additional ground that was taken is that the Ld. Tribunal has not taken into account that there other two vehicles were
also involved in the said accident apart from present offending vehicle.
I have heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the LCR. It is to be noted that the deceased was a
service holder and his service book was properly maintained and on the basis of the service book, his date of birth is recorded as 1.12.1958 so the Ld.
Tribunal accepted the age of the victim as per service book as below 50 years and taken the multiplier 13 which found to be proper in view of the age.
Generally, Service Book is accepted to be the authentic document of a service holder unless contrary is proved. Admittedly, in the given case, the
service book was referred regarding the date of birth of the deceased and there appears no any dispute as regards the entry in the service book.
On the other hand, delay in filing of FIR cannot be the sole criteria to discard such claim case whereas the case has already ended at charge sheet.
Plea of delay in filing the FIR in such accident cases would not be proper as the aim and object of such proceeding is to be redress the grievances of a
person, whose family members died in a road accident. There may be so many facts for filing the case after some delay. Accordingly in the opinion of
this Court, delay in filing the FIR cannot be a ground to discard the case of the claimant.
Lastly, after going through the evidence on record, it is found that the evidence of the claimant side is specific that it was only the offending vehicle
(Indigo Car) which came on high speed and knocked down the deceased, as a result of which he died. The witnesses suggested involvement of no
any other vehicles in the said incident. That being so the aforesaid ground of appeal also cannot sustain. Taking into account all above, there appears
no illegality and irregularity in the aforesaid award so as to interfere into the same. The Ld. Tribunal has rightly concluded the proceeding and has
arrived at a just conclusion while awarding the award and the person being a salaried person the compensation will be always on higher side, which
has happened in this case. I am not inclined to interfere in the aforesaid order.
The learned counsel for appellant has submitted that he has already deposited an amount of Rs. 17, 00,000/- has already deposited as per direction
of the Court in MC No. 1600/2015 order dated
16.12.2015. So the Insurance Company now will release the remaining amount to the claimants within a period of 2 (two) months from today before
the Registry and Registry will disburse the same, as per proportion mentioned in the award. The statutory amount deposited Rs. 25,000/- be adjusted
against the said balance amount.
With the observations made above, petition stands disposed of.    Â