Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, JJ.
Basanti Routh & Others - Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another - Respondents
FMA No. 2781 of 2015
Decided On : 12-05-2017
For the Appellants :Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Santanu Maji, Snigdha Saha, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Rajesh Singh, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to enhanced compensation and interest under the Motor Vehicles Act, based on the reassessment of the claim and the application of relevant legal precedents.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 166 - 173
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal accident caused by the negligence of a bus driver, leading to the death of a passenger. The claimants sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the claimants, awarding compensation of Rs. 14,16,126, an increase of Rs. 3,15,500 from the original award. The court also ruled that the claimants were entitled to interest at 7.5% on the compensation awarded.
Issues: The issues included determining the negligence of the bus driver, the ownership and insurance coverage of the bus, the victim's employment and earnings, and the entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh and others and Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to reassess the compensation. It also held that the claimants were entitled to interest as of right.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the court modified the impugned award, directing the insurer to pay the enhanced compensation and interest to the claimants.
Dipankar Datta, J.
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri by an award dated January 22, 2015, decided MAC Case No. 435 of 2012, which was registered on an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) presented by the claimants. In this appeal under section 173 of the Act, they have called in question such award.
2. On August 23, 2012, Barun Kumar Routh (hereafter the victim), the husband of the appellant no. 1 and the father of the minor appellants 2 and 3 (hereafter the appellants), had boarded a bus bearing registration no. WB-71A/0682 from Dinbazar bus stand, Jalpaiguri. While on his way to Maynaguri, the driver of the bus lost control over the same due to his negligence as a result whereof it skidded off the road and turned turtle on the left side. The victim sustained severe injuries on his head and chest with multiple rib fracture and was admitted to Anandalok Hospital, where after he was shifted to Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri. There he succumbed to his injuries on September 2, 2012 at about 7 am while undergoing treatment as an indoor patient. The appellants approached the tribunal on the death of the victim on December 19, 2012 by impleading the owner of the bus and its insurer as opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively and claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/-. It was pleaded in the application that the victim was an ex-army man who, on the date of the accident, used to earn Rs. 4000/- per month for discharging the duty of security guard at Nursing Training School, Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri. Being a retired army man, he also used to receive pension of Rs. 10,108/-.
3. The claim was not contested by the owner of the bus. The insurer, obtaining leave under section 170 of the Act, contested the claim by filing a written statement wherein the material allegations were denied and disputed. The insurer denied the claim on twin grounds; first, the bus was insured with it and secondly, the accident which took away the life of the victim did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the bus.
4. The appellant no.1 and three other witnesses, including an eye-witness, deposed in support of the claim. The insurer did not rely on any evidence, oral or documentary.
5. The tribunal, upon considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record framed the following issues for decision:
Issues
(1) Was the victim, Barun Kumar Routh a passenger of the offending bus ‘Mangalchandi’ having registration No. WB-71A/0682 at about 06:30 a.m on 23.08.2012?
(2) Did the driver of the said bus bearing No. WB-71A/0682 loose (sic lose) control over the said bus causing the same to go off from the road and becoming turtle on the left side of Jalpaiguri-Maynaguri Road in the region of Ulladabri under Maynaguri P.S, Dist-Jalpaiguri causing severe injuries to the victim Barun Kumar Routh, for which he was treated at different places, but ultimately died in Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri on 02.09.2012 where he was last admitted for treatment?
(3) Did the accident take place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus bearing No. WB-71A/0682?
(4) Was the bus having Regn. No. WB-71A/0682 owned by O.Ps No.1, Dipali Chakraborty and Indrani Sarkar plying on the date of accident and was it covered by a valid policy of insurance with O.P No.1 National Insurance Company Ltd. at the relevant point of time?
(5) Was the victim Barun Kumar Routh aged about 55 years on the date of accident i.e. on 23.08.2012?
(6) Was the victim Barun Kumar Rouh (sic Routh) working as a security guard under Nursing Training School, Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri and did he earn Rs. 4000/- per month prior to his accidental death?
(7) Are the claimants entitled to get any compensation in this case? If so, what is the quantum thereof?
6. Issues (1) to (4) were dealt with together and answered
