PRASANNA KUMAR NAYAK Vs. TRILOCHAN ROUTRAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISC . Appeal No. 661/93 has been filed by the claimant claiming higher compensation, whereas Misc. Appeal No. 622/93 has been filed by the Insurer.

(2.) THE Insurer in its appeal has mainly challenged the findings of the Claims Tribunal regarding negligence of the driver and the quantum. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1997 (2) TAC 1 (SC) : I (1997) ACC 241 (SC) Narendra Kumar and Anr. v. Yarenissa and Ors. and 1998 (2) TAC 379 (SC) : I (1999) ACC 497 (SC) Shankarayya and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Limited and Anr., such questions are not available to be raised by the Insurance Company without following the provisions incorporated in Section 110 -C (2 -A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Moreover, the finding relating to negligence is based on evidence on record and there is hardly any scope for interference.

(3.) IT appears that a sum of Rs. 12,500/ - has been deposited in this Court by the Insurance Company. The said amount alongwith accrued interest may be disbursed to claimant Prasanna Kumar Nayak the Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance amount by 30th April, 2000, alongwith interest as directed by the Claims Tribunal. However, if the said amount is not deposited by 30th April, 2000, the unpaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of fifteen per thereafter with effect from 1.5.2000. Interest shall be calculated on sum of Rs. 25,000/ - from the date of claim application, i.e. 17.5.1986, till date on which the cheque for Rs. 12,500/ - was deposited in this Court and thereafter on sum of Rs. 12,500/ - till date of payment. The deposited amount alongwith accrued interest shall be disbursed within a period of two weeks. Deposit of the balance amount should be made before the Claims Tribunal which shall thereafter disburse the amount to the claimant.