Back
2007 Supreme(Pat) 1344
PATNA HIGH COURT
Rekha Kumari, J.
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
Versus
Most.Rajabala Devi
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 239 of 2005 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 13, 2007
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 166, and the absence of limitation for filing a claim after the Amendment Act of 1994.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - JURISDICTION - COMPENSATION - [M.V. Act, Section 166] - The court discussed the evidence and jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 166, and assessed the compensation based on the age and income of the deceased as per Schedule II of the Act. The court also highlighted the absence of limitation for filing a claim after the Amendment Act of 1994, and the just assessment of compensation based on the Act's provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of Shankar Lal Agrawal. The claimants sought compensation from the insurer and the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle, and that the claimants were entitled to compensation.
Issues: Jurisdiction, limitation for filing a claim, and assessment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim case, the claim was not barred by limitation after the Amendment Act of 1994, and the compensation was justly assessed based on the age and income of the deceased as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and allowed the claimants to withdraw the deposited amount from the Insurance Company.
1. This appeal by the insurer Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is directed against the judgment dated 15.3.2005 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge cum M.A.C.T., Naugachia, Bhagalpur in Claim Case No. 32/2000 by which the Tribunal has ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 4,36,167/- as compensation to the claimants respondents no. 1 to 4 (wife and minor children of the deceased) on account of the death of late Shankar Lal Agrawal in the motor vehicle accident involving Truck No. BR-1B/5445.
2. It appears that on 19.3.1997 at about 2 P.M. there was an accident in Ganga bridge near Gaighat, P.S. Alamganj, Patna by one unknown vehicle as a result of which a man was seriously injured. Hawildar 321 Rajdeo on hulla went to the spot and took the injured to the hospital where he was declared dead. On his written statement F.I.R. was drawn and Alamganj P.S. Case No. 57/97 was registered. During investigation it was found that the deceased was Shankar Lal Agrawal. The police ultimately submitted final report as case true as against the driver of an unknown vehicle.
3. The case of the claimant (respondent no.1) is that she was not aware of the vehicle involved in the accident. She published a notice (Ext. 5) in daily newspaper Aryabarta dated 29.2.2000 that if anybody had any knowledge about the vehicle, he should inform her. In response to that notice she received an Enland letter (Ext. 1) from Sanjay Kumar Khandelia (P.W. 1) that the accident was caused by Truck No. BR-1B/5445. Then the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act on 23.3.2000. In the application it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 3500/- per month and was aged 35 years.
4. The owner (respondent no. 5) of the vehicle contested the claim and in his written statement admitted that he was owner of the vehicle and that on the alleged date the truck had come to Patna but he denied any knowledge of the alleged accident. The owner also took other defences in his written statement.
5. The appellant also contested the claim and took various defences in its written statement.
6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants passed the impugned order. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the owner or the appellant. The appellant, however, had obtained permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the oral evidence adduced by the claimants is not reliable and the evidence recorded is not sufficient to hold that the above truck was involved in the accident. He also submitted that the Tribunal at Naugachia has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim application. The claim case is also barred by limitation and the amount awarded is excessive as there is no proof of income.
8. The learned counsel for the claimants defended the judgment.
9. It is not denied that respondent no. 5 was the owner of the above truck and the appellant was the insurer of the truck on the date of accident. It is also not denied that Shankar Lal Agrawal (husband of respondent no. 1) died in motor vehicle accident on the alleged date on the Ganga bridge in Patna District.
10. The F.I.R. (Ext. 3) of course shows that the same was registered against the driver of an unknown vehicle. It was also not mentioned therein which type of vehicle had caused the accident. The final report also shows that though the name of the deceased could not be ascertained and the final form was also submitted as case true against the driver of unknown vehicle. However, the evidence of A.W. 2 Rajwala Devi, the wife of the deceased, is that she had published a notice (Ext. 5) in daily newspaper Aryabarta and the evidence of A.W. 1 Sanjay Kumar Khandelia is that in response to that notice he had sent letter (Ext. 1) to the respondent. The letter shows that the vehicle involved in that accident was Tata truck being Registration No. BR- 1B/5445. The witness in his evidence has also stated that he was o
