UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MST. KANAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above three appeals are directed against a common judgment and awarded 27th October, 1989 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur in three claim cases arising out of the same accident. Misc. (A) Case No.38 of 1988 was filed by the parents of the deceased Ramkanta Mendali which has given rise to Misc. Appeal No.181 of 1990. The Tribunal in the said case has awarded compensation of Rs.70,500/. Misc. Case No.39 of 1988 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Kaibarta Mahakud which has given rise to Misc. Appeal No.180 of 1990 and in the case the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.72,500/-. Misc. Case No.40 of 1988 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Sadhu Charan Mendali which has given rise to Misc. Appeal No.182 of 1990 and in this case the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment, they were tagged together for hearing.

(2.) The case of claimants in all the three cases is that the deceased persons Ramakanta Mendali, Kaibarta Mahakud and Sadhu Charan Mendali and some Others were traveling towards Villai in a trekker bearing registration No. OAS 4391 belonging to one Sananda Kumar Mishra in the night of 28th November, 1987. At about 12.15 A.M. while they were near Patharnala Rice Mill, a truck bearing registration No. MBR 1516 owned by one Bimala Rani Mahakud came from the opposite direction in a high speed and there was head on collision between the two vehicles causing death of four persons including the three deceased as stated above. Deceased Ramakanta Mendali sustained injuries on the head and other Parts of his body and he was removed to Bargarh Government Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 29.11.1987. Deceased Kaibarta Mahakud also sustained injuries on his head and chest and he also succumbed to the injuries on his way to the hospital. The deceased Sadhu Charan Mendali also received injuries on his head and other Parts of the body and was removed to the Government Hospital and subsequently he was removed to V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla for better treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries on 7.12.1987. The claim of the claimants in all the three cases is that the deceased persons were basically cultivators and having some side business earning about Rs.1,000/-per month. The parents of the deceased Ramakanta Mendali (M.A. No.181 of 1990) claimed compensation of Rs.80,000/-. The legal heirs of deceased Kaibarta Mahakud (M.A. No. 180 of 1990) claimed compensation of Rs.80,000/- and the legal heirs of deceased Sadhu Charan Mendali (M.A. No.182 of 1990) claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

(3.) The owner of the trekker in which the deceased persons were traveling filed written statements stating therein that the trekker was moving on the side of the road in a low speed and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending truck. The owner of the truck took a opposite stand stating that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the trekker, the accident took place. The insurer of both the vehicles filed separate written statements denying the allegations as well as liability. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed three issues separately in all the three cases which involved common issues. With reference to the evidence adduced before the Court, the Tribunal held that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible for the head on collusion between the two vehicles and there was negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. The Tribunal also held that both the vehicles were validly insured with the respective Insurance Companies on the date of the accident and, accordingly held that both the Insurance Companies are equally liable for payment of compensation. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the monthly income of the respective three deceased persons, their age and age of the parents, allowed compensation as stated earlier. The appellant which has been saddled with 50% of the liability has preferred the aforesaid three appeals on the ground that the trekker which has been insured by it was used as a private car for social/domestic and pleasure purposes and there being a specific bar in the Insurance Policy in that regard, liability could not have been saddled on it and the owner of the trekker was liable to pay the compensation. This being the only ground taken in all the appeals, it is necessary to refer to the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Court to decide the issue.