NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. INDRAMANI DASH (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an intra-Court appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment dated 05.08.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 162 of 1994 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and disposing of the cross-objection filed by the owner of the truck-respondent no.9 and allowing the crossobjection filed on behalf of the claimant-respondents by awarding a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, which can be recovered by them either from the insurer of the bus or from the owner of the trekker jointly or severally.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that claimant respondents are the legal representatives/ dependants of deceased Purusotam Dash. The deceased was travelling in a trekker bearing registration no. OSU-8428, belonging to respondent no.9. The trekker was insured with the respondent no.10-the Divisional Manager, United Insurance Company Ltd. On 05.07.1988, there was an accident involving the trekker and the bus bearing registration no. OSP-1843, belonging to respondent no.8.

(3.) After due adjudication, the leaned Tribunal came to a finding that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and assessed compensation at Rs. 2 lakhs and directed that out of the said sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, Rs. 1 lakh shall be paid by the present appellant, being the insurer, and Rs. 1 lakh shall be paid by the owner of the trekker, as passengers were being carried for hire in violation of the policy conditions. Challenging the said award dated 11.10.1993 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttck in Misc. Case No. 855 of 1998, the insurer of the bus filed an appeal before the learned Single Judge, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 162 of 1994 and two cross-objections were filed, one on behalf of the claimantrespondents and the other on behalf of the respondent no.9, who, having remained absent before the Claims Tribunal, entered appearance in the appeal and prayed for direction regarding payment of the compensation amount by the bus owner/insurer of the bus/insurer of the trekker. The claimant-respondents in their cross-objection claimed higher compensation and they further submitted that the liability fixed on the owner of the trekker should be borne by the insurer of the trekker.