UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUSILA PANIGRAHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') calls in question the legality of award made by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (S. D.) Berhampur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

(2.) Factual background as portrayed by the parties is as follows: - A claim was lodged under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Act') by Smt. Susila Panigrahy and her minor children (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants'), claiming a compensation of Rupees 1,50,000/- from Labela Dharma Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the 'owner') and the insurer, on the ground that one Niranjan Panigrahy (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') lost his life on 20-2-1988 in an accident caused by a passenger bus bearing registration No. OCG 7882 belonging to the owner, which was the subject-matter of insurance by the insurer. According to them, the deceased was waiting for a bus, but before he could actually board it, the vehicle hit him as a result of which he fell down, sustained injuries and subsequently breathed his last. He was running a shop at Golantara selling fruits and vegetables and was earning about Rs. 1000/-per month and was contributing for maintenance of his family out of the said income. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of his death. The Tribunal held, that monthly income was about Rs. 1000/- per month after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, held that annual contribution would be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 9000/-, and adopting a multiplier of 11 fixed entitlement of claimants at Rs. 99,000/-. It was held that liability of the insurer was unlimited, and accordingly liability was fixed on the owner, to be indemnified by the insurer. It was stipulated that the amount was to be paid with interest @ 6% from the date of claim within three months. A default rate of interest @ 12% was stipulated in case of failure to pay within the aforesaid period.

(3.) Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the insurer has urged the following points in support of appeal: