National Insurance Company Limited vs Sudhangshu Shil

This appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge an award dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.T.S.(MAC) 217 of 2017. Brief facts are as under:

One Gita Debnath aged about 44 years, was travelling on foot in the early morning hours on 24.11.2017 at about 6-30 a.m. She was going from her house towards Ranirbazar area in Agartala town. Near Ghoramara bridge, she was knocked out by a vehicle causing serious injuries. The passersby shifted her to a nearby hospital where she was declared dead. Deceased was a Government teacher on the date of the accident. She was survived by her husband and two minor children who filed the above mentioned claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.80,40,000 from the owner and insurer of Maruti Alto motor car which according to them was involved in the accident. Before the Claims Tribunal insurance company harboured some doubt about the involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident. Insurance Company carried out its own private investigation. The investigator was examined before the Claims Tribunal. His report was produced. On behalf of the claimants, one Kamal Saha was examined as PW-2 who claimed to be the eye witness of the accident and had given the details of the vehicle in question involved in the accident.

The Tribunal raised following 2(two) issues for its consideration:

"(i) Whether Gita Debnath, wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of both petitioners No.2 & 3, succumbed to her injury sustained in a vehicular accident occurred on 24.11.2017 near Ghoramara bridge at Ranirbazar on Assam-Agartala Road under Ranirbazar P.S. West Tripura District due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.TR-01-U-0409 (maruti car) by its driver.

(ii) Whether the claimant petitioners are entitled to get compensation, if so, upto what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same."

The first issue thus was with respect to the involvement of the vehicle in question in the said accident which led to the death of the lady. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record including the evidence of PW-2 and answered the issue No.(i) in favour of the claimants.

With respect to quantification of the compensation, the Tribunal found that as per the last pay certificate of the deceased her gross salary of the month of October, 2017 was Rs.39,089. The Tribunal granted 30% increase for future income and applied a multiplier of 14, deducted 1/3rd for the personal expenditure of the deceased and computed the loss of dependency benefits at Rs.56,91,392. To this the Tribunal added Rs.15,000 for loss of estate, Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000 for transportation charges and thus awarded a total compensation of Rs.57,26,392.

In this appeal, the sole ground argued before me by the counsel for the insurance company was regarding the involvement of the vehicle in question. He submitted that the evidence of involvement of the vehicle was not sufficient. It was early morning hours when eye witnesses were unlikely to be found. It was a hit and run case and, therefore, it was unlikely that any passerby would have had time to note down the number of the offending vehicle.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants drew my attention to the deposition of O.P.W. No.2, Sri Dibakar Gupta who was appointed by the insurance company as an investigator. He submitted that even according to this private investigator the accident was caused by the said vehicle. The insurance company, therefore, cannot now raise this issue.

As noted sole question in this appeal is of involvement of the vehicle which was insured by the appellant-insurance company. In this context, the Tribunal has relied on the testimony of PW-2 who claimed to be an eye witness. The insurance company has not been able to bring anything through the cross-examination of this witness. More importantly, the insurance company had itself appointed a private investigator. Such investigator had carried out full investigation. He was examined before the Tribunal as a witness of the insurance company. In his deposition, he had supported the case of the claimants that the accident was actually caused by the said vehicle and none other. He had produced his investigation report dated 17.09.2018 before the Claims Tribunal in which also he had elaborately concluded the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.

He being not only the investigator appointed by the insurance company but being a witness examined by the insurance company before the Tribunal, the insurance company is now estopped from challenging the deposition and the version of its own witness. In fact, his version was not even challenged before the Claims Tribunal. The insurance company merely orally argued before me that the evidence of involvement of the vehicle in the accident was sketchy. Such argument is simply not available to the insurance company.

With respect to the quantification of compensation no serious arguments were advanced. However, to satisfy myself I have also perused the exercise undertaken by the Claims Tribunal. The essential facts such as the age of the deceased, her income, the nature and number of claimants were all undisputable. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded on the basis of such established facts and applied the principles for computation of compensation laid down by the judgments of Supreme Court, particularly in the cases of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.