ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SAKUNTALA CHHOTRAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 15.3.2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in M.A. No. 821 of 1997 and M.A. No. 646 of 1998.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in A.H.O. Nos. 64 and 65 of 2000 and the appellants in A.H.O. No. 121 of 2001 had filed M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No. 431 of 1991 before the Fourth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri, claiming compensation to a tune of Rs. 6,27,000 alleging that deceased Bikram Chhotray and his wife along with the two children while proceeding on a motor cycle on 4.9.1990 parked the motor cycle on the left side of the road and proceeded a little ahead to answer call of nature. At that moment the offending bus dashed against the deceased couple, causing their death at the spot. A single claim case was filed on account of death of two persons. Out of the claimants, claimant No. 1 was the mother of deceased Bikram Chhotray and claimant Nos. 2 and 3 were the minor daughter and son respectively. The owner of the offending bus though received notice did not contest the claim case. The insurance company filed its written statement baldly denying the claim. The Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the bus and taking into consideration various factors, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. The claimants thereafter preferred Misc. Appeal No. 646 of 1998 before this court claiming a higher compensation; whereas the insurance company challenged the award before this court by filing Misc. Appeal No. 821 of 1997. Both the said misc. appeals were heard together and were disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common judgment. The learned single Judge took into consideration the fact that deceased Bikram Chhotray's monthly income was Rs. 3,000 and his monthly contribution to the family could not be less than Rs. 2,000, if not more. Therefore, applying multiplier of '15' as the deceased was only 33 years old and also taking the view that the mother and minor children of the deceased were also entitled to compensation towards loss to estate and funeral expenses, the learned single Judge thought it just and proper to award a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 in a conservative estimate. The learned single Judge relying upon the provisions of section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, held that as the insurance company had not taken the permission of the court below, it was not entitled to raise any factual contention. The submission of the insurance company that as the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any driving licence, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation was considered by the learned single Judge and it was held that in absence of any issue to that effect, it was not possible to delve into the same. The learned single Judge directed that the entire compensation amount with interest thereon should be deposited by the insurance company in court and the Tribunal was to redetermine the question regarding inter se liability of the insurance company vis-a-vis the owner of the bus by giving opportunity of hearing to the said parties. With the aforesaid direction both the misc. appeals were dismissed.

(3.) A.H.O. No. 65 of 2000 has been filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment in Misc. Appeal No. 821 of 1997. Similarly, A.H.O. No. 64 of 2000 has been filed by the same insurance company challenging the judgment in Misc. Appeal No. 646 of 1998 whereas A.H.O. No. 121 of 2001 has been filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of the compensation.