NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. DHOBI BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by opposite party No.3/Insurance Company challenging the award dated 13.2.1996 passed by the 3rd M.A.C.T., Puri in M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No.122 of 1981, in awarding Rs.94,000/ - in favour of the claimant/respondents towards compensation, with the direction that Rs.50,000/ - shall be paid by appellant -Insurance Company/opposite party No.3 and Rs.44,000/ - shall be paid by respondent No.4 -owner of the vehicle/opposite party No.1, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application, i.e., 26.10.1981 till realization. The appellant Insurance Company has challenged this award on the ground that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited only to the extent of Rs.20,000/ - vis -a -vis 3rd party liability, multiplier 15 applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side as well as interest should not have been allowed from the date of filing of the claim petition. However the appellant has not Challenged the rate of interest.

(2.) THE matter is listed today for admission under Order XLI Rule 11 of the C.P. Code. As it appears this appeal has been filed in June, 1996 and pending since then without being taken up for admission, even though in the meantime about ten years have elapsed. The accident, for which this claim application has been filed, occurred on 26.4.1981 and the poor claimants have only got paltry sum of Rs.20,000/ - from the amount of statutory deposit made in this Court within a period of last 25 years of the accident. No appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging the impugned award. The main grounds of challenge in this appeal are with regard to the direction to the Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/ - out of the total awarded amount and application of higher multiplier. In view of the above, in my considered view no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this appeal pending any further and the same can be disposed of at this stage. Heard Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the amount of compensation at Rs.94,000/ - while assessing the same by applying multiplier 15, keeping in view the age of the deceased as well as the dependency of the claimants and accordingly passed the award directing the appellant insurance company to pay Rs.50,000/ - out of the total awarded amount along with 12% interest, on the basis of the submissions made and the memorandum filed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company before the Court below. So far as multiplier 15 is concerned, even if lesser multiplier would have been applied, if the amount of compensation would have been more than Rs.50,000/ - and not less than that, then also the Insurance Company would have to satisfy the award up to Rs.50,000/ - and as such application of lesser multiplier would not have benefited the appellant in any manner. Since no appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company in its appeal cannot challenge the amount of award as well as the interest awarded, as because the Insurance Company is only to indemnify the owner of the vehicle if there was a valid policy in respect of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or manifest error of law in the impugned award, which shall require interference of this Court. It is also made clear that, in case there is valid policy and there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company can always be directed to pay the amount of compensation with liberty to realize the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in consonance with the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court vis -a -vis Section 149(4) of the M.A. Act, in accordance with law.