Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Gullu Worrang And 2 Ors

Heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondent claimant.

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 3238/2008 filed by the appellant insurance company disputing their liability to pay compensation to the claimant beyond the stipulation of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act).

Brief facts of the case is that on 21.11.2008, the mother of the respondent claimant was walking on the extreme left side of the road near hotel Sivam in Jakhalabandha. Suddenly a vehicle bearing No. AS-06/AC-0044 knocked her down and as a result, she sustained grievous injuries on her person and she died on the spot. The respondent claimant then filed a claim before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act arraying the owner and driver of the offending vehicle besides the appellant insurance company as opposite parties. The respondent claimant examined herself as the sole claimant witness while the appellant insurance company did not examine any witnesses apart from cross-examining the claimant. As for the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, they did not contest the case and the claim proceeded ex-parte against them.

Consequently, vide the impugned judgment and award dated 27.02.2017 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,29,000/- alongwith 6% per annum from 20.08.2015 (date of evidence) as compensation to the respondent claimant. Aggrieved with the same the appellant/insurance is before this Court.

Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel submits that the main ground for filing the instant appeal is that the respondent claimant was not dependent upon his deceased mother as he himself was working. Referring to the cross-examination of the sole witness, she submits that he deposed that he was a daily wage earner and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. He also stated that he was not dependent upon his mother and he was also working at the time of the death of his mother. She therefore submits that the respondent claimant not being dependent upon his late mother, he is not entitled to compensation as awarded by the Tribunal except the amount towards no fault liability under Section 140 of the M.V. Act as held by the Apex Court in Smti. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 643. She further submits that the said decision has also been relied upon by this Court in MAC Case No. 166/2010 (Tapan Kr. Kalita Vs. Diganta Kalita and Anr.) which was disposed of vide judgment dated 14.05.2019 and also in the case of MAC Appeal No. 56/14 ( The National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kalipada Mondal and ANR.) disposed on 24.07.2019.

The learned counsel further submits that in so far as the amount payable under the conventional heads is concerned, the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court rendered in The National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Shethi and Ors. reported in 2017 16 SCC 680 will cover the same i.e. a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and towards the loss of estate. Besides the aforesaid amount, the respondent claimant will not be entitled to any additional sum. She therefore submits that the impugned judgment and award may be interfered with by this Court.

Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel on the other hand submits that there is nothing wrong with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. Referring to the said judgment, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal in fact awarded interest only from the date of taking evidence by the Claimant on the ground that the claimant took his own time to lead his evidence, Even by this, a substantial amount has been deducted from the compensation awarded. He submits that the respondent claimant and his late mother were sustaining themselves on the composite income earned by both of them. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claimant respondent was totally not dependent on his mother. In so far as the deposition of the respondent claimant in his cross-examination is concerned, the learned counsel submits that he being only a laymen he made such deposition before the Tribunal. From the amount earned by him and his late mother it can only be seen that even the composite income hardly added up to any reasonable amount to sustain them. As such, the impugned judgment may not be interfered with by this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record including the Lower Court reports. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the only ground taken in the appeal is that the claimant respondent is not dependant upon the deceased. To consider this issue, I have perused the evidence led by the respondent claimant wherein in his cross-examination, he deposed that he was a daily wage earner like his mother and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. He is the only son of his mother and at the time of the accident he was working and he was not dependent on his mother.

Having regard to the evidence of the respondent claimant and also upon considering the ratio led down by the Apex Court in Smt. Manjuri Bera (supra), I am of the considered view that the respondent claimant will be only entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as per Section 140 of the M.V. Act towards no fault liability. In addition to the same, the claimant respondent will also be entitled to sum of Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus in all, the respondent claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation. The rate of interest as given by the Tribunal shall be maintained.

It is seen that the appellant has deposited the 50% of the awarded amount before the Registry of this Court in term of the order dated 19.07.2017 passed in I.A. (C) 2258/2017. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 80,000/- as well as the interest from the date of 28.08.2015 shall be calculated by the Registry and disbursed to the respondent claimant on being properly identified and as per usual formalities. The balanced amount alongwith the sum of Rs. 25,000/- deposits by the appellants towards the statutory deposits for filing the appeal can be withdrawn by the appellant insurance company.

With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Registry to send back the LCR.