ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SUDIP RANJAN DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS MAC Appeal is directed against the award in respect of the respondent No. 1 in the common judgment and award dated 16. 6. 2006 and the order dated 4. 7. 2006 in MAC Case Nos. 65 to 68 of 2003 and MAC Case No. 17 of 2004.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 29. 11. 2003, when the respondent No. 1 was driving the Maruti Car No. ML-05-D-1228 from Shillong to Guwahati along with the owner of the said vehicle and her relatives as occupants, one TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No. AS-25-B-1146 coming from the opposite direction dashed against his car at a place called 17th Mile, Byrnihat. As a result of the accident, all the occupants of the car including himself sustained injuries. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ("wc Act" for short) being W. C. Case No. M. 18/wc/20/2003 before the learned Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong for payment of compensation from the owner of the Maruti Car driven by him i. e. the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 4, which is the insurer of the Maruti Car. The learned Commissioner by his judgment and award dated 18. 3. 2004 assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 1,15,284/-, interest at Rs. 2,305/- and the Medical expenditure incurred by him at Rs. 1,00,000/-, the total whereof comes to Rs. 2,17,589/- and directed the New India Assurance Company Ltd. i. e. the respondent No. 4 herein to payment the same to the respondent. This judgment and award was promptly challenged by the respondent No. 4 in RFA No. 1 (SH) of 2004 before this Court.

(3.) IN the meantime, the respondent No. 1 also filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("m. V. Act" for short) being MAC 17 of 2004 before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shillong claiming compensation for the injuries caused to him in the same accident from the owner of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No. AS-25-B-1146 i. e. the respondent No. 2, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. While this claim petition was pending before the Tribunal, this Court dismissed RFA No. 1 (SH) of 2004 by the judgment and order dated 2. 6. 2004. While upholding the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, WC Act, 1923, this Court, nevertheless, observed therein that "since MAC Case No. 17 of 2004 is now pending before the Tribunal, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act against the tortfeasors, and, as such, the amount paid to the petitioner under the WC Act shall be adjusted against the amount to be awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. " This Court further observed that the petitioner should not withdraw himself from prosecuting with the said MAC Case No. 17 of 2004 pending before the Tribunal and in case the petitioner without any reason withdrew himself from the said case, the Tribunal should allow the present appellant to prosecute the case by stepping into the place of the respondent-claimant in the case. The grievance of the appellant herein on this aspect of the matter will be examined shortly hereafter. Anyway, to complete the narrative of the case, the Tribunal thereafter proceeded with the trial of the MAC Case Nos. 65 to 68 of 2003 and disposed of all the cases by the impugned common judgment and award by awarding a sum of Rs. 4,33,248/- with a simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition in favour of the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of varying amounts to the other claimants therein, with which we are not concerned in this appeal.