LAWS(HPH)-2009-6-11

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SAVITRI

Decided On June 16, 2009
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Appellant
V/S
SAVITRI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals arise out of common impugned award dated 1.7.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, H.P. Appeal No. 281 of 2006, titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Savitri Devi & others has been filed by the insurer M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Appeal No. 277 of 2008, titled Smt. Savitri & others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others has been filed by the claimant Smt. Savitri and others. In terms of the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,68,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a. from the date of filing of the application i.e. 1.10. 2005 till the date of the deposit of the awarded amount.

(2.) SHRI Raj Kumar, predecessor-in-interest of the claimants met with a motor vehicle accident on 28.6.2005 and succumbed to his injuries on 3.7.2005. Claimant Smt. Savitri being wife, Master Naman (minor son) and Smt. Krishna , mother, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming compensation of Rs. 25 lacs. The deceased was travelling in Maruti car No. HP-11-4600 owned and driven by Shri Rattan Singh. Due to the negligence of the driver the accident occurred on 28.6.2005 near village Chandi, H.P. Both the driver and the deceased sustained injuries. Sh. Raj Kumar was given medical treatment, both at the State Hospital, IGMC, Shimla and PGI, Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries on 3.7.2005. At the time of the accident Shri Raj Kumar was a government servant and employed as Pharmacist in the Animal Health/Breeding Department (Animal Husbandry), State of Himachal Pradesh and drawing a salary of Rs. 9058/- per month. He was 34 years of age and the only bread earner in the family. In addition to the salary he was also having income of Rs. 10,000/- per month from agricultural source.

(3.) IN separate reply filed by the insurer the claim petition was contested on merits, after taking permission under Section 170 of the Act.