MACA/174/2019
2021 Latest Caselaw 3871 Ori

                              MACA No.174 of 2019




10.   19.03.2021         Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for Appellant
                   and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 &
                   2. In spite of notice, the owner is not appearing.
                         Challenge to the judgment & award dated 17th
                   August, 2018 being passed by the 1st A.D.J-cum-1st
                   MACT, Cuttack in MAC No.511 of 2014 is made on two
                   grounds; one is, the driver of the offending vehicle was
                   not authorized to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous
                   goods and second is, there is some illegality in respect of
                   notional income of the driver.
                         Referring   to   the   plea   taken   in   the   written
                   statement, attempt is made by Mr. Roy, learned counsel
                   for the Appellant that in spite of such plea being there in
                   the written statement and evidence being led to this
                   aspect, there has been clear ignorance of all these
                   grounds on the same issue by the Tribunal; resulting the
                   bad judgment.
                         To the contrary, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the
                   Respondent Nos.1 & 2 submitted that for the dispute
                   being raised, there may be a question of liability, but the
                   Claimants are no way to suffer. It is, in this view of the
                   matter, this Court while not accepting the plea of the
                   Insurance Company on the aspect of authorization of the
                   driving license involving the driver of the offending vehicle
                   in question, however grants liberty to the Insurance
                   Company to proceed against the owner of the offending
                   vehicle for recovery under Section 174 of the M.V. Act,
                   but on payment of the compensation amount to the
                   claimants in terms of the direction of the Tribunal. Now
                   entering into the question of income aspect, this Court
                                2




       finds, since the accident has taken place in the year 2010
       and for the settled position of law, there is no illegality in
       deciding the notional income being a sum of Rs.3000 per
       month. In such view of the matter, this Court finds, there
       is no force in the submission of Mr. Roy, learned counsel
       for the Appellant on the second ground.
             On deposit of the awarded amount before the
       Tribunal and filing of a receipt before this Court in token
       of such deposit with a refund application, the statutory
       deposit with accrued interest shall be refunded to the
       Insurance Company.
             With the aforesaid observation and direction the
       MACA stand disposed of.



                                         ..............................

(Biswanath Rath, J.)

Ayas