Important PointRight of insurer to file appeal against award of MACT is restricted to grounds available u/s 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 166—Victim, son of claimants, driving car met with accident in a head-on collision with a bus—Victim died in accident—Tribunal held both victim and driver of bus equal contributory in accident and accordingly held claimants entitled to 50% of the award amount—High Court declined to interfere in appeal—Appeal by claimants—Findings by Tribunal were based on well appreciation of facts and evidence—No cogent or convincing reason to disagree with findings and consequential entitlement of claimants to 50% of award amount. (Para 12)
(ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 166—Victim a young boy aged 24 years and a science graduate, son of claimants, died in accident—He was earning Rs. 4000/- p.m.—Tribunal assessed loss of dependency at Rs. 28,800/- p.a. and applied multiplier of 12 keeping in view age of claimants who were parents of deceased—Appeal was upheld by High Court in appeal—Appeal by claimants for enhancement of award—Contention that future prospects of deceased were not looked into and considered—Mere assertion that deceased would have earned more than Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- p.m. in span of his life time could not be accepted—No evidence was brought regarding future prospects—No reason to interfere. (Para 8)
(iii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 173 and 149(2)—Appeal by Insurance Co. against award challenging interest part of award—Tribunal had awarded interest since filing of claim application—High Court modified award holding claimants entitled to interest only for period of two years—No permission of Tribunal was taken by Insurance Co. to contest claim on grounds other than u/s 149(2) of the Act—Writ petition was not maintainable and award passed by Tribunal was liable to be restored. (Paras 17 and 18)

Judgment

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—These two appeals involve identical questions of facts and issues, and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Civil Appeal Nos. 3731-3732 of 2002 are filed by the appellant impugning two judgments and orders dated 19th July, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati in M.A.C. Appeal No. 56 of 2000 and in Writ Petition (C) No. 4418 of 2000. Facts of Civil Appeal No. 3731/2002 shall cover the facts of the other Appeal No. 3732 of 2002.

C.A. No. 3731 of 2002

3. Facts in brief are that on 15.4.1988 at about 4.00 p.m. an accident took place at Kharjan Pol of Sahab Pathar, Tingrai, a place between Tinsukia and Digboi in the State of Assam wherein two vehicles, namely, Maruti car bearing registration No. UPI 237 and a bus bearing registration No. ASQ 8446, were involved in a head-on collision. Raj Kumar Dugar, the owner of the Maruti car, died in the accident on the spot. Bidya Dhar Dutta, respondent No. 1, is the owner of the bus and Ajay Baruah, respondent No. 2 herein, was driving the offending bus, when it met with an accident. The bus was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited-respondent No.3. The car of the deceased was not insured as he had purchased it hardly a day or two before the accident. The appellant-Bijoy Kumar Dugar and his wife-Smt. Panna Devi Dugar [now dead] were the original claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), Tinsukia. They claimed a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents. The MACT, relying upon the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and Ajay Baruah, driver-respondent No. 2, both were driving their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and the accident was as a result of their contributory negligence for which the insurer respondent No. 3 was liable to pay half of the amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 1,76,800/-, to the claimants. It also directed that the amount of compensation as awarded be paid with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

4. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount of compensation, the claimants filed MAC Appeal No. 56/2000 before the High Court. The Oriental Insurance Company also challenged the award in Writ Petition (C) No. 4418/2000, on the sole ground that the Company is not liable to pay interest on the compensation amount from 1988 as directed by the MACT. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, but allowed the writ petition of the insurer holding the claimants entitled to interest on the award amount only for a period of two years, i.e. from 10.1.1989 to October, 1990 when the Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement before the MACT. The Award to that extent, accordingly, was modified. Now, the claimants are before this Court in these two appeals assailing the correctness and validity of the judgments and orders dated 19th July, 2001 passed by the High Court. During the pendency of these appeals, claimant Smt. Panna Devi Dugar had died and her legal representatives are proforma respondents herein.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides at length. Three submissions were advanced by Shri Jos Chiramel, learned counsel for the appellant, to assail the order of the High Court dismissing the claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. First, that the High Court has failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased who was a Science Graduate, prosecuting law studies and at the same time he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month as an attorney-holder of a petrol pump. According to the learned counsel, Raj Kumar would have earned minimum Rs. 8,000/- to 10,000/- per month, if not more, if he had not died in the accident. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on G.M., Kerala S.R.T.C. Vs. S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 192

Important PointRight of insurer to file appeal against award of MACT is restricted to grounds available u/s 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act.

Cases Referred (3)