AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajasekhar Mantha, J
CAN 1805 of 2017
Sufficient grounds have been made out for explaining delay in filing of the instant appeal. Hence, the delay of filing the appeal is hereby condoned and
the appeal is admitted. Accordingly, CAN 1805 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.
 The appeal is admitted.
 FMAT 1259 of 2016
By consent of the parties, the instant appeal is treated as on day’s list and is taken up for hearing.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2016 passed in MAC Case No. 65/14 arising out of MAC Case No. 373/12
by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur. The claim was filed under Section 166 of the M.V.A. Act,
1988.
The brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.2013 the victim Pratima Das was injured in a road accident. She was proceeding on foot keeping to the
left side along the morum portion of the Haldia-Mecheda road at Patikhali and when she reached V.I.P. more, suddenly the offending vehicle being
the tanker bearing No. WB 23B 6762 coming from Haldia side at a very high speed, dashed an iron stand and thereafter the victim & other few
persons and thereafter capsized over the victim beside the said road. The victim sustained serious injuries and was admitted and treated at West Bank
Hospital at Andul, Howrah.
The claim petition was filed in 2012 and the learned court below received evidence in the form of certified copy of the F.I.R., the charge sheet,
seizure list, insurance policy, voter identity card, referral card and 8 bills of medical treatment. The learned court below awarded medical treatment
expenses to the extent of Rs. 94,207.09/- and a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. A large number of other claim cases have been filed in connection with the
accident.
The insurance company argued in the learned court below that the driving licence of the driver of the tanker was fake and fictitious. However, the
court below had held that since in other motor claim petitions are arising out of the same accident, the insurance company did not produce appropriate
evidence, the said issue was not entertained by the learned court below.
In fact, this court had also in FMAT 384/2015 vide judgment dated 19.02.2020, in an appeal filed by the victim on account of compensation payable for
the death of her minor daughter had rejected the similar claim of the insurance company for want of evidence.
In the instant case, however, the Tribunal has not recorded that the insurance company did not leave any evidence as regards the falsity of the driving
licence of the driver of the tanker.
In such circumstances, this court is of the view that the insurance company shall be entitled to lodge an appropriate claim for recovery of all the sums
of money paid in respect of the incident of rash and negligent act that resulted in a road traffic accident relating to the vehicle No. WB 23B 6762 on
19.09.2011.
The insurance company may lodge its claim against the owner of the vehicle for allowing the same to be driven by an unauthorized person.
Hence, the instant appeal is disposed of. In view of the above, CAN 1806 of 2017 is also disposed of.
COT 17 of 2020
The cross objection has been filed by the victim Pratima Das for enhancing of compensation payable to her on account of the pain and suffering she
had gone through as a consequence of the medical treatment.
This court has carefully considered the judgment impugned as discussed in the context of FMAT 1259/2016. This court is of the view that the
compensation awarded to the petitioner is sufficient and calls for no interference.
Hence, COT 17/2020 stands dismissed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance company that a sum of Rs. 25000/- has been deposited in this court at the time of filing of the
instant appeal, the same may be paid by the Registrar General of this court to the bank account of the claimant cross objector Pratima Das by
NEFT/RTGS particulars whereof shall be supplied by counsel for Pratima Das including details of bank accounts and other documents within a period
of 15 days from date. The insurance company may make the payment 15 days thereafter.
The balance amount awarded by the learned court below shall be made over by the insurance company after 15 days of receipt of the particulars of
the bank accounts and other details of Pratima Das, the claimant cross objector.
The lower court records, if any, shall be returned back to the learned court below forthwith.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary
formalities.