The Single Judge bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the application under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act was enacted to accommodate the needy claimants promptly without taking the procedure required under Section 166 M.V. Act for proving negligence.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the application was filed by the present Respondents under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act in order to get compensation on the ground that their predecessor died in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle duly insured under the policy of the Insurance Company. Thereafter, the learned tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,17,840/. Aggrieved by this, the insurance company filed the present appeal.
Contentions of the Insurance Company
The Insurance Company submitted that the judgment passed by the learned tribunal was not justified as the deceased was a pillion rider of Mophed and the same was not covered by the policy of the insurance company. It was furthermore submitted that the application under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is not maintainable as the income of the deceased was stated more than Rs.40,000/- in the claim application.
The Insurance company relied upon the judgments titled Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. V. United India Assurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, and Kanai manna V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Contentions of the Claimant
The Claimant submitted that the law has changed, therefore, the claim application is not barred by law. The Claimant relied upon the judgment titled Ram Murti and Others V. Punjab State Electricity Board.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the learned tribunal has considered Rs. 40,000/- to be the income of the deceased person while assessing the compensation and by virtue of the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, more relief has been provided to the claimants.
It was furthermore observed that the purpose of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is to expeditiously accommodate needy claimants, without having to follow the procedure outlined in Section 166 of the M.V. Act for proving negligence.
It was noted that it was not proved before the learned tribunal the deceased belonged to the section of people for whom the provision of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is not applicable.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the claim case is not barred by law and also, there exists no justification to interfere with the quantum of compensation.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the application.
Case title: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sumitra Mondal & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta
Case No.: FMA 47 of 2008
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Paul, Advocate.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mondal, Advocate :Ms. Sima Ghosh, Advocate : Mr. Sayantan Rakshit, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
