LAWS(JHAR)-2018-2-8

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD THROUGH PRATIK CHOUDHARY Vs. BABITA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE KAILASH PODDAR

Decided On February 12, 2018
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd Through Pratik Choudhary Appellant
V/S
Babita Devi, Wife Of Late Kailash Poddar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2015, passed in M.A.C.C. No.24 of 2013 by the District Judge-I -cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, West Singbhum, Chaibasa whereby the appellantHDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. has been directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.9,36,000/- less Rs.50,000/- paid as interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, i.e. Rs.8,86,000/- with interest @ 9% payable from 18.07.2013 till payment or realisation.

(2.) It is submitted that Kailash Poddar was travelling on the tempo bearing registration No. JH05 AM 6578. It is alleged that the driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which he lost control of the tempo which fell from the bridge into Koyal river. That the deceased sustained injuries on the head due to the impact with the railing of the bridge. He was brought for treatment to the Primary Health Care and then taken for better treatment to Rourkela but he died on the way.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. has submitted that the deceased was father of the owner of the tempo and he does not come in the category of a third party in terms of Section 147 of the M.V. Act, 1988. It is argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that as per the post mortem report the age of the deceased has been assessed at 53 years and in such circumstances it has erred in computing the age of the deceased as between 45 to 50 years on the basis of the statement of the claimant. It is canvassed that no document regarding the income of deceased has been produced and the Tribunal has committed manifest error in assessing the income at Rs.6000/- per month merely on the basis of the statement of AW-1-claimant and DW-1. That the compensation awarded is excessively exorbitant and the interest levied at 9% is on the higher side.