The court established that compensation for motor accident victims must be just and equitable, considering loss of dependency and conventional heads, while adhering to established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

Re: I.A. No.01 of 2019 (Limitation Petition)

1. This interlocutory application No.01 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing this miscellaneous appeal by the appellant.

2. This application is supported with the affidavit.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to this application.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the application and in the interest of justice, the I.A. No.01 of 2019 is allowed.

5. The delay in filing the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is condoned.

Re:-Miscellaneous Appeal No.904 of 2018

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) on behalf of New India Assurance Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “Insurance Company”) against the Judgment dated 23.01.2018 and Award dated 31.01.2018 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge VIII-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as “learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.161 of 2013.

8. The learned Tribunal held that claimants (respondent nos. 1 to 3) are entitled to receive Rs.65,48,760/- as compensation and accordingly appellant/ Insurance Company has been directed to make payment of the said compensation amount within two months from the date of order along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case i.e. 22.04.2013 till realization of the compensation amount.

9. The brief facts of this case are that on 19.06.2012 deceased Vijay Kumar Jaiswal was traveling from Muzaffarpur to Motihari on a Jeep bearing Registration no. BR-06PB-0315 (hereinafter referred as ‘accidental vehicle’). Meanwhile, when he reached Muslim Tola Chap in front of Bajrang Line Hotel near N.H.-28, the aforesaid Jeep, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Raj Kumar, dashed a J.C.B. which was standing on the side of the road due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries, thereafter, he was sent to Sadar Hospital, Motihari for treatment where he succumbed to injuries and died. With respect to the said incident Pipra Muzaffarpur P.S. Case No.160 of 2012 was registered under Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The age of the deceased at the time of the incident was about 43 years and he was employed as a teacher in Navodaya Vidyalaya, Purnia.

10. Claimant no.1 is the wife of the deceased wherein claimant nos. 2 & 3 are minor children of the deceased, being represented through their mother i.e. claimant no.1.

11. The owner of the accidental vehicle i.e., O.P. no.1/Respondent no.4 did not appear on notice thus, proceeded ex-parte. O.P. no.2/appellant appeared and filed the written statement on 08.07.2014 stating that the claim petition filed by the claimants is not maintainable and the same is affected by mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. It is further stated that the accidental vehicle bearing registration No. BR-06 PB-0315 was duly insured by the insurance company bearing Insurance Policy no.54050031110100002782 valid from dated 21.02.2012 to 20.02.2013 in the name of the O.P. no.1 i.e., the owner of the aforementioned accidental vehicle. Furthermore, it was stated that it is a case of contributory negligence between J.C.B. Machine and the accidental vehicle so the insurance company is liable to pay only 50% of the compensation amount. It has also been stated that if valid driving license of the driver of the accidental vehicle and route permit not found valid or not submitted by the owner of the accidental vehicle then the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the awarded amount, if any.

12. On the basis of pleading and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

i. Whether the claim case as framed maintainable?

ii. Whether the accident took place due to ra