(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 29th May, 1999 passed by the Second Motor Accident/ Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 658 of 1988 directing the Appellant Insurance Company to pay to the claimants i.e. respondent Nos. 1,3,4,5 and 6 deceased respondent No. 2 compensation amount of Rs. 1,44,000 with in a month along with cost of Rs. 500/- and interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 9th September, 1988 till payment on account of death of deceased Sandip Mandal in a road accident. Claimants have filed cross-objection to the appeal.
(2.) Claimants were deceased's parents, grand-mother and sisters, Claimants' case is that the accident resulting in fatal injuries to and death of the deceased occurred on 27* August, 1988 at about 11.45 a.m. when he was going as a pillion rider of the offending scooter belonging to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 going towards Chandichhak from Barabati Stadium side. Offending scooter, being driven at a high speed, dashed against the right rear side of the truck while attempting to overtake it. As a result, deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries. While under treatment he died in the evening in S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Deceased was 20 years old. He was an electrician and television mechanic. His income was Rs. 2,400 per month which he contributed for the maintenance of the claimants. On such averments, claimants filed application under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, '1939 Act') for award of compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/-. It was pleaded that insurance policies in respect of offending scooter was issued by the Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & the truck was insured by respondent No. 10 National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(3.) Respondent No. 7 and 8 were set ex parte. Respondent No. 9 filed written statement pleading, inter alia, that the accident occurred due to rash & negligent driving of the truck driver. He admitted that the Appellant had issued insurance policy to him in respect of the offending scooter. It was also averred by him that the truck was denying issuance of insurance Policy in respect of the truck. It was further pleaded that the truck was not responsible for the accident. Appellant also resisted the claim in their written statement.