SUSANTA MONDAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was a vegetable dealer. He was travelling by the offending vehicle towards Ghatal for purchasing vegetable for his business. The vehicle dashed a truck whose identity could not be established. Due to such accident the appellant sustained injury. He was treated as an indoor patient for couple of weeks in the hospital. Later on he was treated by a private hospital. He claimed that he was permanently disabled to the extent of twenty five per cent. He was twenty five years on the date of accident earning Rs. 100 to Rs. 110 per day. In this backdrop, he filed a claim petition inter alia, claiming a sum of Rs. 1. 5 lakhs as compensation. The Insurance Company opposed the claim. The owner did not come forward to contest the claim. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellant to the extent that he was involved in the accident sustaining injury. However, while granting compensation the tribunal applied the structured formula by taking a notional income to the extent of Rs. 15,000. 00 and granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 56,250. 00. The Tribunal, however, did not grant any interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal foisted the liability on the owner and absolved the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation amount. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the instant appeal which was heard by us on the above mentioned date.

(2.) MR. Krishanu Banik, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal contended before us that the Insurance Company was not entitled to take the plea that the offending vehicle did not have any valid permit to carry passengers and as such the Insurance Company was liable to make payment of the compensation amount.

(3.) TO elaborate his argument Mr. Banik contended that whether the insurance policy covered the subject risk or not, was to be proved by the Insurance company having special knowledge of the same. The victim being a third party could not have any access to the policy of insurance. The Insurance company having not led any evidence proving the insurance policy, was not entitled to take such plea.