THE BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HIMALAYA HOUSE Vs. ALI MAYA SHARMA, D/O PARMANANDA SHARMA, SAURENI ASSEM LINGZEY, EAST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 29.11.2013 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal "), where under, the appellant herein was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,94,732.59 (Rupees five lakh ninety four thousand seven hundred thirty two and paise fifty-nine) only with interest @ 10 % per annum to the Claimant-first Respondent, herein. The claim petition was filed under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) against the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle, second-Respondent, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,20,071.39.

(2.) The facts, in brief, leading to filing of the instant Appeal, are that the first-respondent, an old lady, met with an accident, while walking on the road side at Jalipool, East Sikkim on 15.07.2011, as hit by the vehicle Tata Tipper Truck bearing registration No. SK-03/3074. She sustained 60% locomotor disability, as certified by the Central Referral Hospital, Tadong. It was noticed that the first-respondent was aged about 60 years at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal holding the notional income of the claimant/first-respondent as Rs. 3,000.00 per month, being the house-wife, held that the Insurance Company is fully liable, on the premise that the vehicle was fully insured at the time of accident. The Tribunal calculated the compensation on different heads i.e. loss of earning, transportation to hospital, medical expenses, future medical expenses and pain and suffering, and determined the total sum to the tune of Rs. 5,94,732.59. Resultantly, the Tribunal awarded the said sum with an interest of 10% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition till full and final payment is made. During pendency of this Appeal, the entire compensation amount is paid.

(3.) It is appropriate to mention that the appellant herein was ex-parte, as the appellant did not appear and participate in the trial before the Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, the instant Appeal is filed under the provision of Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Along with the appeal, the appellant has preferred an application for condonation of delay of 532 days. Reasons for the condonation of delay as projected by the appellant/applicant are that the appeal is required to be filed on or before 28.02.2014 as the impugned judgment and award was pronounced on 29.11.2013. It is stated that the application for obtaining the certified copy of the said judgment and award was made on 16.12.2013 which was made available on 28.12.2013. Thereafter time was taken to obtain opinion and as such delay to the extent of 532 days was bona fide, which deserves to be condoned. The appellant/applicant was given one more opportunity to file better particulars. Subsequently, it was stated that the file of the case reached the office of the appellant in Jan., 2014, thereafter, 2 - 3 months time was taken for opinion. In the meantime, certain relevant documents were to be located and the investigator took the task of locating the documents. The investigator collected the documents from all authorities including the police and completed the collection of documents by the end of Sept., 2014. Thereafter, the file was sent to the office of the Advocate in the month of Oct., 2014. Some more documents were required by the Advocate as such further documents were collected and sent back to the office of the Advocate by the end of month of Dec., 2014. On receipt of such documents, a draft appeal was prepared and sent to the office of the appellant at Kolkata for vetting and signing. The draft appeal was sent back to the concerned Advocate for incorporation of some more points and the same could reach the office of the Advocate only in the month of Feb., 2015. Again it was referred to the office of the appellant for signing in the month of March, 2015. Some more time was taken to file the appeal, which according to the appellant/applicant was subsequently filed on 26.08.2015. Thus, the delay caused on account of movement of file as afore stated is bona fide and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.