Orissa High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sauri Das And Others on 21 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AHO No.01 of 1999
The Divisional Manager, New India .... Appellant
Assurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar
Mr. B. K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Sauri Das and others .... Respondents
None
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
21.03.2022
Order No.
03. 1. This appeal by the New India Assurance Company Limited is
directed against the judgment dated 11th December, 1998 passed by
the learned Single Judge dismissing Miscellaneous Appeal No.459
of 1995 filed by the Appellant.
2. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge upheld the
Award dated 5th August, 1995 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (MACT) in MACT Case No.2456
of 1992 awarding a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the Claimants-
Respondents 1, 2 and 3.
3. At the relevant time when the aforementioned claim was filed,
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the parents of the deceased Narayan
Das and Respondent No.3 was his minor dependant sister. The
deceased died in a fatal road accident when a Tractor along with a
Trolley came from the rear and dashed against the cycle on which
the deceased was being taken by his associate at around 8.30 AM
on 19th November, 1992. The rider of the cycle also received some
injuries. At the time of his death, the deceased was 25 year-old. His
monthly income from the coconut business was Rs.2,000/- of
which he was contributing Rs.1,500/- towards the maintenance of
his dependent parents and unmarried sister. The claim petition was
filed claiming Rs.4,70,000/- as compensation.
4. The MACT found that the accident had occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the Tractor driver. The monthly earning of
the deceased and his contribution to the family were all proved
before the MACT. Applying the multiplier in the 2nd Schedule to
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), the MACT awarded Rs.3
lakhs as compensation.
5. Before the learned Single Judge, the present Appellant i.e. the
Insurance Company tried to argue that since the accident occurred
in 1992, whereas the Schedule in terms of Section 163-A of the
MV Act was introduced in 1994. Therefore, the multiplier set out in
the Schedule will not be applicable. However, following the
decision of the Supreme Court of India in Shankarayya v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 3 SCC 140, the learned Single
Judge held that the Insurance Company could not raise any
challenge to the quantum awarded or on the question of negligence
of the driver of the Tractor and Trolley. In any event, neither on the
question of negligence nor as regards the quantum of
compensation, the learned Single Judge found any ground to
interfere.
6. In the present appeal, it is again sought to be contended that
because of the accident took place in 19th November 1992, the
Schedule to the MV Act will not apply. By the time the MACT
decided the case, the Schedule had already come into play. The MV
Act being a statute intended to benefit accident victims, the
Schedule thereto ought to be applied in pending cases of accident
victims even if the accident occurred at a time when the Schedule
was not in force. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the
contention regarding applicability of the Schedule to the MV Act.
7. For the death of a 25 year-old person, compensation of Rs.3
lakhs, particularly when the negligence of the driver of the accident
causing vehicle is proved, can hardly be said to be excessive. There
are no grounds whatsoever made out for interference with the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R. K. Pattanaik)
Judge
M. Panda
