ASHA MOHARANA Vs. PRASANNA KU SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals one by the claimant and the other by the insurance company have been filed questioning the award dated 6.10.2005 rendered by the Ist Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar in M.A.C. Case No.54 of 1994 awarding compensation of Rs.44,100,00 to be paid within 45 days failing which the same will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim urging various grounds in support of their respective cases in their appeals. While the claimant has challenged the compensation as inadequate and prayed for enhancement of the same, the insurance company has prayed for setting aside the award on the ground that it is not liable to pay the compensation.

(2.) THE necessary relevant facts and legal contentions are extracted herein with a view to find out as to whether the amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side or inadequate, as contended by the appellants and whether the appeal of the claimants is required to be allowed by awarding just and reasonable compensation.

(3.) THE brief facts are that the claimant s daughter Srimati Maharana was working as a coolie in the truck bearing registration number ORJ 1916. On 31.1.1994 she was traveling as a coolie in the said truck. While the truck was moving in a high speed, it capsized as a result of which Srimati, the daughter of the claimant, sustained injuries and expired at the hospital. The case of the claimant was that the deceased was earning Rs.900.00 per month and the vehicle in question was duly insured and the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license. As the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question resulting in the death of the daughter of the claimant, the claim was made by her. The insured -owner of the vehicle did not appear in spite of service of summons upon him and therefore he was set ex parte. The appellant insurance company filed its statement of counter urging the plea that the vehicle was not duly insured and the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license. Therefore, there was breach of the policy condition. Hence, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. On the aforesaid pleadings, the case went for trial. The claimant examined herself and produced documents Exts. 1 to 7 but neither any witness was examined by the insurance company nor was any document produced on their behalf. On the basis of the pleadings, the tribunal framed three issues. The same were answered in favour of the claimant and after recording a finding that the accident took place on the fateful day due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver causing death of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs.44,100.00 as compensation taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.900.00. Due to non -production of evidence to show her monthly contribution to the family, the learned Tribunal divided the family into units taking two units per major member and one unit for minor member. Since the petition revealed that the deceased died leaving behind the claimant, the total units came to four. The expenditure per unit came to Rs.225.00 and calculated on that basis the expenditure towards the deceased came to Rs.450.00 and it was further considered that she being the earning member was likely to spend Rs.150.00 more towards her comfort. So the monthly dependency was determined at Rs.300.00 and accordingly the annual dependency came to Rs.3,600.00. The claimant being the only dependant and applying the multiplier of 11, the age of the claimant being 52, the total dependency worked out to Rs.39,600.00. Holding that the claimant was entitled to Rs.2000.00 towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500.00 towards loss of estate, the entitlement of the claimant was fixed at Rs.44,100.00 and the liability was fastened on the insurance company despite the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving license to drive the vehicle and therefore the liability should have been fastened on the owner.