ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ARJUNA KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the 'Act') the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') calls in question legality of the award made by the Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri (in short, the 'Tribunal').

(2.) ON the basis of an application filed under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'old Act') by Arjuna Kumar Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No. 831 of 1987 was instituted. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for the injuries allegedly sustained by him, in an accident which took place on 6.11.1987 at about 8.30 a.m. near Palasuni Check Gate on Cuttack -Bhubaneswar road. According to him, while he was moving in a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No. OSU 3805 from cuttack to Bhubaneswar on his left side at a normal speed with his sister -in -law as the pillion rider, a car bearing registration No. OSX 5005 belonging to Pardipta Kumar Mohapatra (hereinafter referred to as the' owner') came from his opposite direction at a high speed and dashed against him as a result of which he sustained injuries. The vehicle ran over his leg and therefore, he sustained fracture injuries. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh on the ground of pain and suffering sustained by him and loss of income. He asserted that he lost his earning capacity. The claimant claimed that he was running a Kirana shop in Malgodown area of Cuttack, and though he was originally earning Rs. 7,000/ - to Rs. 8000/ - per month, he had to let out the same to one Paramananda Biswal on a monthly rent of Rs. 850/ -.

(3.) THE insurer has assailed correctness of the award on the following grounds: (a) The conclusions regarding disability are presumptuous and based on fake documents; (b) Since the claimant claimed to be running a Kirana shop, in the absence of any material to show that there was any loss of earning, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding any amount for loss of income. In any event the multiplier of 35 is extremely high and unreasonable. The claimant had originally claimed Rs. 40,000/ -, and without any basis enhanced the claim to Rs. 1 lakh by way of amendment. It clearly shows that on an afterthought the enhancement of claim was made. (c) The amounts awarded towards mental shock, physical pain and loss of pleasure in life and towards the medical expenses square on the higher side. (d) Further the default rate of interest as stipulated is also stated to be untenable in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Harapriya Nayak and Ors. 1994 (1) O.L.R. 88. The claimant supported the judgment and relying on the evidence submitted that the Tribunal's conclusion about contributory negligence is erroneous.