AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—These two appeals, respectively by the claimants and the Insurer are directed against the same judgment and award dated 29th March 2007, passed in MVC No. 320/2004, by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi, (for short, ''Tribunal''). While the claimants have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is inadequate; the Insurer has filed the appeal seeking to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, on the ground that the Insurer is not liable to indemnify the compensation as the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident in question;
The facts in brief are that, the claimant No. 1 is the wife and claimant No. 2 is the minor daughter of the deceased Dr. V.N. Raja. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 10:00 P.M., on 03-10-2003, when the deceased was riding his two wheeler towards Udupi, near Guddeyangadi, Udyavara on NH-17, a Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-19/8768, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, in order to over take the Car, came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result, Dr. V.N. Raja fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Hi-Tech Hospital, Udupi and subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries sustained, in the Hospital.
It is the case of claimants that the deceased was aged about 42 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and earning a sum of Rs. 24,875/- per month, by working as a Professor in Physics at M.I.T. Manipal on account of his unnatural and untimely death, the claimants have lost the sole bread winner in the family apart from the first claimant losing her life partner at an young age and the minor child losing the love and affection, inspiration and guidance of its father and also losing social, moral and financial security. Therefore, it is their case that they have to be compensated reasonably by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
We have heard Shri. Kishore Shetty, learned counsel appearing for claimants and Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company, for quite some time.
Learned counsel appearing for claimants, at the outset submits that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side for the reason that the deceased was aged about 42 years and earning a sum of Rs. 24,875/- per month, by working as a Professor in Physics at M.I.T. Manipal and also an income tax assessee. On account of his unnatural and untimely death, the claimants are left with no source of income and they are totally displaced and under financial distress. Therefore, he submits that the income of the deceased may be re-assessed and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be suitably modified by enhancing the compensation.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Insurer, at the outset submits that, the direction issued by Tribunal to indemnify the award amount cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside at the threshold. In order to substantiate his submission, he has filed I.A.I./2012, seeking permission to produce the criminal court records and also the letter written by the Director General of Police before this Court, to prove the offending vehicle in question was falsely implicated. Along with the I.A.I./2012, learned counsel has filed the list of documents, to substantiate his stand that the Insurer is not liable to indemnify the award passed by Tribunal. The list of documents consists of 1) a letter dated 25th May 2010 addressed by the Director General of Police, Bangalore to the Superintendent of Police, Udupi; 2) a letter dated 10th may 2010 addressed by the appellant/Insurance company to Superintendent of Police; 3) certified copy of the order dated 9th July 2004 passed by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) & JMFC, Udupi, in C.C. No. 518/2003; 4) certified copy of depositions of CW1 to CW9 and certified copy of the judgment dated 17th September 2005 passed by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Udupi in C.C. No. 518/2004. The said application is allowed by a separate order, permitting the counsel for the Insurer to produce the same before the Tribunal.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the matter requires re-consideration by the Tribunal, which can be done only after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, to be adduced by the parties concerned and after permitting them to file necessary application for raising additional grounds/production of additional documents.
Having regard to the totality of the case on hand, including the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, we are of the opinion that expressing any opinion on the merits of the case would definitely affect the stand/defence to be taken by the respective parties. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of case, it would suffice for this Court if appropriate direction is issued to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh, after permitting the parties to lead evidence, both oral and documentary, to meet the ends of justice. In the light of the discussion made above, the appeals filed by the claimants and also the Insurer are hereby allowed.
I] The impugned judgment and award, dated 29th March 2007, passed in MVC No. 320/2004, by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi, is hereby set aside;
II] Matter stands remanded back to Tribunal for reconsideration afresh and to pass appropriate order, in accordance with Law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the claimants and Insurer, personally or through their counsel and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, on top priority basis, not later than eight months from the date of receipt of application to be filed by both the parties for leading oral/documentary evidence, bearing in mind the fact that the accident is of the year 2003;
III] All the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal filed by the claimants as well as the Insurer are left open;
IV] Parties are permitted to file necessary application/s, for adducing additional evidence, oral/ documentary, to substantiate their respective case within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
V] In case such application/s is/are filed by the learned counsel for the parties, within the time stipulated above, the Tribunal is directed to receive the same and proceed further and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of the direction given by this Court, as above;
VI] Registry is directed to transmit I.A.I./2012 filed by the Insurer along with the documents to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith;
VII] Registry is further directed to return the entire original records, if any, received from the Tribunal, to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith,
VIII] Registry is also directed to transmit the statutory amount deposited by Insurer as also the amount deposited by Insurer by virtue of the interim order dated 22nd January 2008 to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith;
IX] The Tribunal, shall upon receipt of the same, re-deposit it in Fixed Deposit, in any nationalized or scheduled Bank, till the final decision is taken by the Tribunal;
X] It is needless to clarify that the Tribunal shall decide the matter, independently, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court during the course of its judgment.
Office to draw award, accordingly.