UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO Vs. ASHOK KUMAR ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are interlinked in the sense that one is directed against decision relating to fixation of no fault liability, and other against quantum awarded by Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (N.D.), Sambalpur, Camp -Dhenkanal (in short, 'the Tribunal').

(2.) FACTUAL position is as follows. One Prasanta Kumar Nayak lost his life in accident which took place on 12.3.1988. A bus bearing Registration No. ORU 7737 owned by one Ashok Kumar Nayak was involved in the accident. The Tribunal quantified entitlements of the claimants who were parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased at Rs. 1,43,000/ -. Interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. 28.4.1988 till payment was granted. It was held that the deceased was working in a photo studio was earning Rs. 1400/ - per month and was contributing Rs. 7,00/ - per month for the maintenance of his dependents. - -

(3.) FROM a perusal of order passed by the Tribunal and with reference to records, I find that adequate opportunity was granted to the insurer. It was represented by Counsel who participated in the proceeding. Though there is mention in the written objection filed before the Tribunal about policy being taken subsequent to accident, there was no reference to the proposal form. No material whatsoever was adduced before the Tribunal on that aspect. Though in the written statement filed by the insurer it has been stated in paragraph -5 that policy covers risk from 3.30 p.m. of 12.3.1988 till 11.3.1989, original proposal form was not filed before the Tribunal. No reason has been indicated as to why it was not so done. It is not known as to whether this was the application for proposal form submitted by the insured. Had this document been brought before the Tribunal, the insured would have got an opportunity to throw light on the alleged omission to mention about the accident. That having not been done, I find no scope for accepting prayer for proposal form being accepted as additional evidence. The position would have been different, had that been done. Therefore, I do not consider this to be a fit case for accepting prayer that proposal form be considered as additional evidence. Coming to the quantum, I find that one of the claimants was elder brother. No material was brought to show he was a dependent. The younger brothers of the deceased were 15 years and 11 years respectively at the time of presentation -of claim application in April, 1988. Other two claimants were younger sisters aged 17 years and 13 years at the time of presentation of claim application. Father of the deceased died during pendency of the proceeding and therefore, question of deprivation does not arise. So far as the mother is concerned, she is stated to be 45 years. Considering all these aspects and question of continued dependents which would have been there had the dependents been alive and principles as regards appropriate compensation as laid down by Apex Court in the General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. : AIR1994SC1631 in my considered opinion appropriate quantum would be Rs. 90,000/ -. For arriving at this figure, I have taken multiplier of 10, and also taken into consideration possibility of increase in income which is relevant factor while considering question of appropriate rate of multiplier and contribution. The amount alongwith interest (which comes to Rs. 75,600/ -) be deposited in this Court on 22.4.1995. Out of deposited amount, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - each be kept in fixed deposit, for three years in the name of Suchitra Nayak, and for five years in the name of Kumari Sarada Nayak. Fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000/ - shall be made in the name of Sukanta Kumar Nayak, and sums of Rs. 25,000/ - each shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Sweta Kama Nayak and Smt. Malati Nayak for a period of five years. Claim made by Susanta Kumar Nayak is disallowed, because he was elder in age to the deceased and no material has been placed to show that he was dependent on the deceased. The balance amount be released in favour of Smt. Malati Nayak on her being identified by any of the learned Counsel appearing in this Court. The Misc. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.