UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. SATIYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1-3. Notice upon respondent no.4 has been validly served which has been recorded in the order dtd. 26/4/2022. The matter was again taken up on 5/1/2023 and it was adjourned however respondent no.4 has not appeared till date and in that view of the matter the appeal has been heard on merit. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment/award dtd. 19/2/2015 passed by learned Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.211 of 2004. The compensation case was filed by Mrs.Satiya Devi, Mahesh Kumar Munda and Ramdhan Kumar Munda who were the widow of the deceased namely Birsa Munda and the minor sons respectively. Daru Munda was also one of the claimant however he was died during pendency of the compensation case. Birsa Munda was aged about 33 years having a monthly income of Rs.9320.00 died as a result of motor vehicle accident which took place on 18/4/2004 at about 7.30 a.m on National High Way within P.S. Namkum near village Jamchuwa. It is stated that the deceased was returning from Tamar to his house at Kuju along with his family by motorcycle after attending the marriage ceremony of his cousin then a Maruti Van bearing registration No.AS-19- 3582 owned by the O.P.no.2 (respondent no.4 in this appeal) and driving by the O.P.No.2 Samir Baran Das in very rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of Birsa Munda resulting serious multiple injuries on the person of the deceased and ultimately death of Birsa Munda after being taken to C.C.L. Hospital Gandhi Nagar. It is stated that the said Birsa Munda died on 19/4/2004 and the claim of Rs.12.00 lac has been claimed.

(2.) After hearing the insurance company as well as the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned tribunal has been pleased to award to make the payment of Rs.19,09,000.00 after deducting the amount if any paid u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of settlement of issues i.e. 27/7/2011 till the date of payment which shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment failing with interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be payable from the date of judgment. Aggrieved with this, the insurance company has filed the present appeal. Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel for the appellant contested this appeal on the ground that driving licence has not been proved before the learned court however the learned court has allowed the compensation without considering this aspect of the matter which is against the mandate of law and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Pappu and Others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2013) 3 SCC 208. Relying on this, he submits that onus primarily lies on the owner of the vehicle to establish that the driver of offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and he had valid driving licence which is lacking in the case in hand and the O.P.No.2 has not appeared before the Tribunal. He further submits that the quantum is also not in accordance with the law. According to him, the future prospect was not required to be awarded in view of the fact that wife of the deceased has got the compassionate appointment and she was getting more than of the deceased was getting. On this ground, he submits that the appeal is fit to be allowed. Lastly, he submits that atleast the Tribunal was required to pass the order for recovery of the amount after satisfying by the insurance company from the owner of the vehicle in question. On this ground, he submits that this appeal may kindly be allowed. On the point of future prospects he relied in the case of Himachal Road Transport Corporation Chamba vs. Mrs. Inumoni Gegum, 2020(2) NEJ 745 [MAC Appeal No.223 of 2010].

(3.) Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 submits that the right of recovery was not argued before the Tribunal and at the appellate stage the right is not accrued in favour of the appellant. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded the compensation and has also answered on the point of compassionate appointment in paragraph no.19. He submits that there is no illegality in the award.