Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Snehalata Behera

P.K. Tripathy, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Counsel for the claimants/Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. This LPA is disposed of on their consent at the stage of admission.

Judgment of Learned Single Judge passed on 27.1.2004 in M.A. No. 2 of 2001 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that Learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (in short, ''Tribunal'') in Misc. Case No. 1213 of 1991. Award of the Tribunal was delivered on 17.11.1999. Appellant challenges to the aforesaid award and the judgment on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive by adopting the higher multiplier and that, in absence of proof of a valid driving licence in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability of the awarded amount should not have been saddled on the appellant.

So far as the contention relating to excessiveness of the award, it is argued by the appellant that instead of 15 multiplier the Tribunal should have adopted 12 multiplier. We find from the award of the Tribunal that the deceased being the sole bread-earner for the family, has left over a good number of defendants, which includes middle aged widow, minor children and old aged parents. Thus, the Tribunal applied 15 multiplier. Learned Single Judge, on appreciation of facts and evidence, did not find any reason to interfere with the said mode of assessment. In the absence of any illegality in that respect having been pointed out, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of the award.

So far as other contention is concerned, we find from the impugned award as well as the judgment of Learned Single Judge that the driving licence of the Driver, which was seized in the police case, was found to be acceptable being valid on the date of accident and accordingly the contention of the appellant on the basis of Ext. A another driving licence was negatived. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that during the pendency of the M.A. application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC was filed to introduce additional evidence to justify that the driving licence relied on by the Claims Tribunal is not a genuine document. If that document would have been accepted as evidence, then liability of the appellant would not have accrued.

We do not find any merit in that contention in as much as no good ground is shown to file additional evidence. Apart from that, hypothetically if it is considered that the driving licence, Ext. A is genuine and not the driving licence seized in the police case, then also, as per the settled principle, the Insurance Company would have been directed to make payment of the claim amount with liberty to prosecute the owner for recovery. If the appellant is legally so advised, it may resort to that recourse by filing appropriate application before the proper forum in view of the ratio in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Nanjappan and Others, . Therefore, we do not interfere with the impugned judgment of Learned Single Judge. Accordingly the LPA is dismissed and parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigation in this forum. Hearing fee is assessed at contested scale.

In view of the preceding finding, we observe that if appropriate application is filed by the appellant before the appropriate forum, then it be considered on its own merit, on which we express no opinion, and be disposed of strictly in accordance with law.

It is stated at the Bar that the awarded amount has been deposited in this Court. If that be so, the same be disbursed to the claimants in conformity with the mode directed in the award of the Tribunal and judgment in M.A. No. 2 of 2001.

A.K. Samantary, J.

I agree.