NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SULOCHANA TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSURER is the Appellant under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "the Act').

(2.) ON 21.7.1982, deceased Kali Prasad Tripathy, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police attached to Jarada Police Station in Ganjam District, was going as the pillion rider on the motor cycle driven by the Officer -in -charge of that police station. At about 10 a.m. when they were returning to Jarada from village Tumba near village Panchasmba, they approached a blind curve on the road and the Officer -in -charge could not see a passenger bus coming from the other direction. The bus which was coming at a high speed while taking turn dashed against the motor cycle, as result of which, both the Officer -in -charge and the deceased were thrown out. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on account of which his widow and old parents filed an application under Section 110 -A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/ -. The death resulting from the accident, the ownership of the bus and the motor cycle and the insurance with the Appellant are not in dispute. The owners of the bus and the motorcycle having contested, the scope of objection of the Appellant is much limited under Section 96(2) of the Act. Accordingly, there is no scope for the Appellant to challenge the finding that the driver of the bus was negligent to the extent of 75% and the driver of the motor cycle was negligent to the extent of 25%.

(3.) MR . P. Roy, the learned Counsel for the insurer Appellant, submitted that the apportionment of the compensation among the widow and the parents of the deceased is wholly contrary to law. In support of his submission Mr. Roy submitted that the average longevity of a male in India is 70 years and a female is 65 years as has been accepted by various courts. The parents having exceeded that age ought not to have been awarded any compensation. Apparently, his submission is attractive, but on close scrutiny it is without any substance. A legal representative is entitled to the compensation till he remains alive. The average life span is taken into consideration for computation of the lump sum compensation towards contribution to the family. That basis would not be available where there are several claimants, some of whom have crossed the average life span. In case the parents would not be available to be the dependants of the earning members, the widow would get the entire benefit. Therefore, there is no scope for the insurer to challenge the apportionment among the widow and the parents.