AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The victim was a driver of Auto Rickshaw, that caused the accident and the victim died. His widow and children applied for compensation that was denied by the Tribunal on the ground that the driver was not covered by the policy of insurance. The Tribunal relied on a Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Appaji (since deceased) and Another Vs. M. Krishna and Another, ). We have heard Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Asimesh Goswami, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.
On a close look to the Karnataka Division Bench decision, we find that the claimants made an application u/s 163A claiming compensation for death of a scooterist, who did not own the scooter. According to the claimants, the owner engaged him as driver. The Karnataka High Court considered the policy of insurance and came to conclusion that driver of a scooter was not covered by the policy of insurance. We find from the record of the present case before us that the driver was squarely covered by the policy of insurance. Hence, in our view, the Karnataka High Court decision would be of no assistance to us. The Tribunal possibly overlooked this aspect.
Mr. Banerjee has relied on a Division Bench decision of our Court in the case of Khokan alias Prodeep Saha Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, wherein the Division Bench held that u/s 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants would have option either to approach the Workmen''s Compensation Court or the Motor Accident Tribunal for appropriate relief.
The appeal, thus, succeeds in part and is allowed. The judgment and award impugned is set aside.
It was a case u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence it was to be decided as per the principle of no "fault liability".
We, thus, proceed to calculate the compensation. The victim was 32 years old, however, the wife claim he was 36 years old. He was receiving Rs. 3,300/- as monthly salary. The accident occurred in 2004. Even if we apply the decision in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, , we would find the claim justiciable. The multiplier of 16 would be appropriate. The compensation is, thus, thus calculated as follows:-
The award would carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum on and from March 19, 2005, being the date of filing of claim petition till the payment is made by the Insurance Company.
The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation as well as the interest to the claimant No. 1 through account payee cheque to be sent at the recorded address by registered post with acknowledgement due. Such payment must reach the claimant No. 1 within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With these observations the appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs. The Registry is directed to send down the records at once, if received by this time.