Ranjit Ghosh vs Manindra Kr. Debnath and Others

P.K. Sarkar, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura District, Udaipur on 17.4.1996 in T.S. (MAC) No. 40 of 1995.

The Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 as Petitioners claim compensation for sustaining injuries in the motor accident in which the vehicle No. TRL 1040 was involved. The Respondent-Petitioners were travelling from Sabroom to Jalefa in T.R.L. Truck No. 1040 which met with an accident at about 5.30 p.m. near Thaibong and the Respondent-Petitioners sustained injuries in their bodies. The Respondent-Petitioners were treated at Sabroom hospital and one of the Petitioners Nandu Debnath, the minor claimant was referred to G.B. Hospital for further treatment. All these eight Respondent-Petitioner claimed various amounts for sustaining injuries in the motor accident ranging from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh. The owner of the vehicle and also the New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed written statements.

It is an admitted fact that the vehicle No. TRL 1040 was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd at the time of accident. The Insurance Company even though filed a written statement before the Claims Tribunal they did not adduce any evidence. The learned Claims Tribunal after taking the evidence and after hearing die parties awarded compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 12,500/- to each of the Respondent-Petitioners. The Tribunal also directed that the compensation shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle, i.e. the Appellant Shri Ranjit Ghosh. Having felt aggrieved by the order of the Claims Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle as Appellant has filed the present appeal.

Mr. S. Das, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-owner submitted that the vehicle No. TRL 1040 was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in directing the Appellant-owner to pay the compensation money to the injured Respondent-Petitioners. Mr. Das further submitted that there is no evidence that the owner of the vehicle violated any of the conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the learned Tribunal was wrong in fixing the liability with the owner of the vehicle. Mr. Das, the learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the observation of the Claims Tribunal for making the owner liable for compensation is that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrier vehicle and the owner of the vehicle is not authorised to carry any passenger and such injured persons travelled in the goods carrier vehicle in violation of the conditions of the licence and as such the owner has been made liable for making payment of the compensation money.

Mr. Das, the learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the injured Respondent-claimants travelled as passengers and in support of which the Insurance Co. led no evidence to show that the Respondent-Petitioners travelled in the vehicle TRL 1040 without any authority or that they were travelling as passengers. Therefore, in absence of any evidence on record it cannot be said that the injured Respondent-Petitioners were travelling as passengers or they were not going by die vehicle as labourers or workers of the owner.

I have also heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-claimants. Mr. Dutta submitted that there is no evidence to hold that the vehicle carried excess passengers beyond the permissible limit. I have gone through the record of the case and I am satisfied that there is no evidence before the Court to hold that there was any breach of the insurance policy. The Insurance Company was made a party in the claim petition. But Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence in support of their written statement. In absence of any evidence I am of the view that the owner should not be saddled with the liability of making payment of the compensation money specially in view of the fact that there is no evidence on record to show that any of the terms of the insurance policy was violated or the driver was carrying any persons in contravention of the condition of the policy.

In this connection Mr. Dutta has referred the case decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.5.1997 in First Appeal No. 158/97 and First Appeal No. 156/1997. I have gone through the certified Copy of the judgment submitted by Mr. Dutta and on perusal of the judgment of the aforesaid appeals it is evident that present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the said appeals.

Mr. S.M. Ali, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submitted that no evidence has been led the Respondent-claimants or by the owner-Appellant that they were carrying the Respondent-claimants as per terms of the insurance policy. This view cannot be accepted as it is for the Insurance Company to show that if any condition of the licence is violated by the owner or the driver of the vehicle. Mr. Ali further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on 5.6.95. Mr. Ali, representing the New India Assurance Company Ltd. submitted that the rate of interest given by the Tribunal is exorbitant and the Insurance Company has not been made liable till now for compensation and even if the order is modified the Insurance Company should not be saddled with the liability of making any payment of interest prior to the order of this Court.

Mr. Das, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that he has no objection if the insurance Company is made liable to pay interest from the date of judgment of this Court. Mr. Dutta, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-claimants submitted that the Insurance Company should at least pay interest for the period from the date of filing of the claim petition on 5.6.95 till the date of judgment by the claims Tribunal on 17.4.96.

After considering the submission of learned Counsel of all the parties, I am of the view that since the Insurance Company has not been made liable for compensation by the claims Tribunal and now if the insurance Company is made liable to make the compensation they should pay interest only from the date of judgment in the present appeal.

Accordingly, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. should be liable for making payment of interest from the date of judgment of this appeal. Since the vehicle No. TRL 1040 was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. I am of the view that the compensation money awarded by the Tribunal to the Respondent-Petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- each should be paid by the aforesaid Insurance Company and not by the Appellant-owner of vehicle.

Accordingly, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. is directed to make payment of the Compensation money to each of the Respondent-Petitioners No. 1 to 8 at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- each within a period of two (2) months from today. If the Insurance Company fails to pay the aforesaid compensation money within the aforesaid period of two months then the compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the compensation amount is paid to the Respondent claimants.

The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the Appellant-owner with the Registry of this Court may be refunded to the Appellant.

The appeal stands disposed of with the above order and directions.