SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MONALISHA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a claim for compensation under Sec. 166 of the M.V.Act, learned Addl. District Judge-cum-5th M.A.C.T., Athgarh in M.A.C. 5 of 2014 has directed for payment of compensation of Rs.83,04,304.00 on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dtd. 4/8/2014. The Insurer i.e., Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. has come up in appeal under Sec. 173 of the M.V.Act.

(2.) Mainly the challenge is on the question of quantum and negligence. As per submissions of the Insurer, no negligence can be attributable on the driver of the offending truck for the cause of accident, or at best it can be up to 50% only. Secondly it is contended that the assessment of the Tribunal regarding income of the deceased and computation of loss of dependency are full of errors.

(3.) Before examining the first point which is relating to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck, a little narration of facts is necessary. The accident took place on 4/8/2014 in the morning at 8.30 AM on the National Highway near Gada-khurda area. The main road including the place of accident is separated by the divider in the middle of the road thereby making the road into two separate lanes. At the time of accident the deceased was moving in a Scorpio and offending truck was coming in other lane of the road. As per the narration of the eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws. 2 and 4 and the I.O. (O.P.W.1), the accident was a front collusion between the Scorpio and the truck. The Insurer tried to develop the case that the Scorpio in which the deceased was travelling, due to his own fault, while overtaking another truck get imbalanced, crossed the road divider and dashed against the offending truck which was coming in the opposite lane from the opposite direction. However, despite it's best effort P.Ws. 2 and 4 did not admit the same. But O.P.W.1- the I.O. was called to the witness box at the instance of the Appellant-Insurer and stated that to his knowledge the Scorpio dashed against the road divider first, went to the other side of the road and collided to the offending truck. Admittedly, this O.P.W.1 is not an eyewitness. He as the Investigating Officer in the criminal case has submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the truck. It is not that either in the F.I.R. or in the charge-sheet this has been mentioned. He is not an eyewitness to the accident and has gained his knowledge through others. Therefore, his evidence to shift negligence on the driver of the Scorpio that it crossing over the road divider went to the opposite lane of the road to collide with the truck is not found trustworthy to be relied upon. The evidence of the eyewitnesses, particularly P.W.4 remains unshakable enough to fix negligence on the driver of the offending truck in the cause of the accident. Thus the contention of the Insurer to shift the negligence from the driver of the truck, or at least to the extent of 50% on the driver of the Scorpio is rejected.