ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. SMT.SANGEETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This LPA arises out of order dated 5.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing CWP No. 13789 of 2010 filed by the present appellant, Insurance Company against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar. Facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are briefly noticed.

(2.) Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein filed a claim petition being MACT Case No. 13 of 2009 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar claiming compensation arising out of motor accident resulting in death of Corporal Rupesh Kamboj. The deceased was receiving salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month. Claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 25.00 lacs. Respondents No. 5 and 6 were driver and owner of the offending truck whereas appellant herein i.e. the Insurer of the Truck was also impleaded as party respondent in the claim petition. After the trial, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 42,78,760/-. The Tribunal also ruled that the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation more than the claim made in the claim petition. The compensation amount also carried interest at the rate 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization of the amount. Certain directions were issued with regard to apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount, keeping in view the fact that some of the claimants were minors. All the respondents were made liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally.

(3.) The Insurance Company, respondent in the claim petition being aggrieved of the award dated 20.1.2010 passed by the Tribunal, instead of availing the remedy of statutory appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenged the award by way of writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court, being CWP No. 13789 of 2010. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment dated 5.9.2011 holding that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Rejecting the contention of the appellant herein that the award is unconscionable, learned Single Judge made certain observations on the issue of award being unconscionable. It is against the aforesaid judgment that the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal before us.