ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. Vs. KALLOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Achintya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-original claimants. None appeared for the owner.

(2.) Both these appeals arise out of same incident in which one person had died and one person sustained injuries. First Appeal From Order No. 637 of 2005 arises from claim petition filed by the claimant/heir of the deceased whereas First Appeal From Order No. 643 of 2005 arises from claim petition filed by the injured-claimant.

(3.) It is submitted that the deceased was aged about 61 years at the time of accident and was being paid about Rs.4,000.00 per month. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was urged before the learned Commissioner that the person of 61 years of age could not have been employed as a driver. Moreover, his driving license had expired on 26/1/2002 and, therefore, also the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with liability. The Commissioner awarded Rs.2,27,540.00 to the heir of the deceased and Rs.3,18,772.80 to injured-claimant, whereas, the claim petitions were for Rs.2,00,000.00 each. It is further submitted that the rate of interest would be 5% to 6% and the Commissioner has ignored the said fact. It is submitted that there is no independent witnesses who had deposed whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the other vehicle. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Commissioner has ignored the fact that the claimants had failed to prove that the deceased was under the employment of opposite party no.1.