NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. GITANJALI MAHANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award/judgment dtd. 7/8/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Balasore in M.A.C. Case No. 153 f 2016. In the said award, the Tribunal has directed the appellant-insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.61,07,518.00 along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum to the claimant-respondents from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. from 12/4/2016 till its actual payment within two months from the date of award. It was also directed that out of the compensation amount, as awarded, the claimant- respondent no.1-wife of the deceased shall get a sum of Rs.31,07,518.00, out of which a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 shall be kept as fixed deposit in her name in a nationalized bank for a period of six years and the balance amount of Rs.6,07,518.00 along with accrued interest over the entire compensation amount of Rs.61,07,518.00 be paid to her in cash. The claimant-respondents 2 and 3, who are the daughters of the deceased, shall get a sum of Rs.12,50,000.00 each and the entire amount be kept as fixed deposit in their names separately in a nationalized bank for a period of six years in respect of respondent no.3 and till attaining majority in respect of respondent no.2. The respondent no.4, who is the father of the deceased, shall get a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00, out of which a sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 shall be kept as fixed deposit in his name in a nationalized bank for a period of six years and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 be paid to him in cash. It was also observed by the Tribunal that there shall not be any premature withdrawal of the above fixed deposits without the permission of the Tribunal. However, respondent no.1 for self and on behalf of her minor daughters, i.e. respondents nos. 2 and 3, so also respondent no.4, is at liberty to withdraw the quarterly interest on the fixed deposits for their sustenance.

(2.) The brief fact, as delineated in the impugned judgment, tends to reveal as follows:- On 4/4/2016 around 12.45 p.m., while the deceased was standing near Dwarasuni Thakurani temple, on the left side of the road and waiting for a bus in order to proceed to Baripada, at that time, the offending vehicle coming from backside, being driven in excessive speed with rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased from his backside and the front wheel of the offending vehicle ran over the deceased, thereby causing grievous injuries on vital organs of the deceased. The deceased became senseless at the spot. Immediately, the local people, fire brigade personnel rescued the deceased and shifted him to Bangiriposi Government Hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries. In connection with the accident, Bangiriposi P.S. Case No. 40 of 2016 was registered and investigation was taken up. Inquest as well as post mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The vehicular papers of the offending vehicle were valid and effective on the date of accident so also the driving license of the driver. It was equipped with valid permit and fitness. The deceased was 40 years of age on the date of accident and he was serving as Police Constable and earning Rs.30,122.00 per month. For the premature death of the deceased, the respondents pleaded to have sustained pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss and accordingly filed the MAC Case No. 153 of 2016, wherein the award/judgment as indicated above has been passed.

(3.) Mr. G.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant-insurance company vehemently contended that the award made by the Tribunal is exorbitant and grossly high for which interference of this Court is warranted. According to him, while passing the award, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the materials available on record in as much as, the Tribunal has not excluded the personal allowances paid, along with the monthly salary while computing the amount of compensation. He further contended that though several grounds have been set out in the memo of appeal, but he mainly relied upon ground nos. 'B ' and 'C ' on account of which the award impugned is liable to be modified. In support of his contention with regard to ground No. 'C ' pertaining to personal allowances, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Mishra, relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764.