Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, JJ.
National Insurance Company Limited & Another – Appellant
Versus
Pratima Barick & Others – Respondent
F.M.A. No. 1064 of 2015 & C.O.T. No. 38 of 2014
Decided On : 03-03-2017
Motor Vehicles Act - Claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the relevance of belated registration of FIR, identification of the offending vehicle, and determination of just compensation. Key legal provisions such as the requirement of lodging an FIR, determination of compensation, and application of multipliers were crucial in the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of her son in a road accident. The respondent no. 1 did not contest the claim, but the respondent no. 2 contested the claim on various grounds. The claimant provided evidence to support the claim, and the tribunal passed an award in her favor. The respondent no. 2 appealed the award, and the claimant filed a cross-objection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the belated registration of the FIR was not sufficient to disbelieve the claimant's case. It also found that the offending vehicle was identified as a 'Fiat Car' and that the tribunal's determination of compensation was not in accordance with the law. The court held that the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation was 17 and determined the just compensation to be Rs. 37,97,000.
Issues: The issues included the relevance of belated registration of FIR, identification of the offending vehicle, determination of compensation, and exercise of discretion in awarding interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the belated registration of the FIR was not sufficient to doubt the claimant's case. It also held that the identification of the offending vehicle as a 'Fiat Car' was reliable based on the evidence presented. The court determined the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation and found that the tribunal did not exercise discretion in awarding interest.
Final Decision: The court set aside the tribunal's award, dismissed the appeal by the appellant/insurer, allowed the cross-objection by the claimant, and determined the just compensation to be Rs. 37,97,000. The appellant was directed to pay the balance sum of Rs. 16,35,000 together with 9% interest to the claimant.
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. A claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) was presented on February 25, 2011 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burdwan by Smt. Pratima Barick, giving rise to M.A.C. Case No. 12/41 of 2011. The case pleaded therein reveals that on November 6, 2010, at about 01.00 hours, the claimant's son, Nil Ratan Barick (hereafter the victim) was returning home along with his friends after witnessing Kali Puja and while they reached near Sialdanga More at G.T. Road, suddenly a vehicle driven at very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the victim and his friend, Sayantan Chakraborty, as a result whereof the victim fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries all over his body and died at the spot. At Sl. No. 15 of the relevant form for filing claim petition, the claimant had mentioned the registration number of the offending vehicle, i.e. WB-42B/0859 (Fiat Car). According to her, it was owned by a Yakub Mallick, the respondent no. 1. The insurer of the vehicle, National Insurance Company Limited, was impleaded as respondent no. 2. It is also revealed that the victim, 28 years of age, was an assistant teacher in a school whose monthly income was Rs.24,184/-. The claimant being the mother of the victim, accordingly, prayed for Rs. 29,00,000/- (Rupees twenty nine lakh) on account of compensation.
2. The respondent no. 1 did not contest the claim petition by filing written statement despite service of notice. The respondent no. 2, obtaining leave to contest the claim petition, filed written statement denying the material allegations levelled in the claim petition. Delayed registration of FIR was raised as the first point in defence for persuading the tribunal not to accept the claim as genuine and bona fide. It was also alleged that no want of due care and caution could be attributed against the driver of the vehicle and that there was no fault or negligence on his part. Finally, it was urged that the alleged incident was caused due to contributory negligence on the part of the victim himself. It was, accordingly, pleaded that the claim ought to fail.
3. To prove the claim, the claimant examined herself as PW-1. The Headmaster of the school where the victim was employed as teacher was examined as PW-2 to prove the employment of the victim as well as proof of certificate dated November 23, 2010 (Ext. 10) issued by him (PW-2), where from it would reveal that the gross pay of the victim, as on November 23, 2010, was Rs.24,184/- and net pay Rs.19,014/-, after deduction of Rs.5,170/- [on account of GPF - Rs.5000/-, G.S.L.I. - Rs.40/- and Professional Tax Rs.130/-]. An eye-witness to the accident, Pulak Das, was examined as PW-3. He deposed that the victim was dashed by a vehicle bearing registration no. WB-42B/0859; that, it was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver thereof; and that, the said vehicle or its driver was responsible for the death of the victim.
4. In course of cross-examination, the version of PW-3 could not be demolished by the respondent no. 2. It is also noted that no evidence was led by the respondent no. 2 to prove contributory negligence of the victim resulting in his death, as had been pleaded in the written statement. The driver of the vehicle was also not produced as a witness by the respondent no.2 to support the defence case that there was no want of due care and caution on his (driver) part and that he was neither at fault nor negligent while driving the "Fiat Car" in question. After all, none else other than the driver could have said so having regard to section 106 of the Evidence Act.
5. Be that as it may, having heard the learned advocates appearing for the claimant and the respondent no. 2 and on consideration of the materials on record, the tribunal passed an award dated May 8, 2013. Issues 1 to 3, which were framed in view of objections raised by the respondent no. 2 in the written statement regarding main
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
