Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited And Anothers. - Appellant
Versus
Swapna Ghosh And Another - Respondent
F.M.A 38 of 2008 with Cot 6 of 2008
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Mr. Sanjoy Paul, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ashique Mondal, Advocate, Mr. Arup Kumar Bag, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability and apportionment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act based on the cause of the accident and the responsibility of the insurance companies.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Apportionment of compensation - Section 166
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal challenging the judgment and order for apportionment of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident occurred on a national highway involving a truck, a Qualis Car, and a Bolero Car, resulting in a claim for compensation from the insurance companies of the vehicles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused solely by the negligent act of the truck driver, leading to the conclusion that the insurer of the truck was solely responsible for the compensation.
Issues: The main issue was the apportionment of compensation between the insurance companies of the vehicles involved in the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence and police reports to determine the cause of the accident and the responsibility of the insurance companies. It also referred to relevant judgments to calculate the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court directed the National Insurance Company to deposit the balance amount of compensation and reimburse the Oriental Insurance Company, and allowed the claimants to receive the balance amount of compensation.
JUDGMENT
Bibhas Ranjan De, J. - This is an appeal filed on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, challenging the judgment and order dated 31.05.2007 passed by Learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in M.J.C no. 288 of 2005, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby a direction for apportionment of compensation between the appellant (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) and respondent no. 4 (National Insurance Company Ltd.) was given.
2. In fact, main ground of the appeal is that the order for apportionment of compensation between Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and National Insurance Company Ltd., was bad in law as the accident took place only due to negligent act on the part of the driver of truck.
Background of the case:-
3. On 21.05.2005 at about 00.00 hours one truck, bearing Reg. No. WB-25-9952, was plying through National Highway No. 34 with a very high speed and in rush and negligent manner and all of a sudden pushed its break and stopped the vehicle. At that time, one Qualis Car, bearing Reg. No. WB-02T4430, plying on the same road following the truck, dashed the truck. At the same time, one Bolero Car bearing Reg. No. WB-60-9313 coming with high speed following that Qualish Car, could not control its speed and smashed the said Qualish Car, where husband (since deceased) of the claimants No. 1was travelling from Siliguri to Calcutta along with others. The said accident took place within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Karamdighi where a Police Case No. 79/2005 dated 21.05.2005 was started.
4. Accordingly, claimants prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,00,000/- from the National Insurance Company who insured the truck bearing Reg. No. WB-25-9952 as well as Oriental Insurance Company insurer of Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No. WB-60-9313. The National Insurance Company and Oriental Insurance Company contested the case by filling their respective written statement denying all material allegations made in the claim application.
5. Ld. Tribunal framed issues and took up the claim petition for trial. Three witnesses were examined in this case and several documents were admitted in evidence as exhibit 1 to 16.
6. Ld. Tribunal after considering all the facts and circumstances, including the evidence recorded thereon came to his findings that claimants were entitled to the tune of Rs. 15,84,000/-and both the Insurance Company i.e. National Insurance company and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. were held equally responsible to clear up the compensation amount by issuing cheques in the name of claimants.
COT NO.6 of 2008
7. Petitioner of the claim petition filed one memorandum of cross objection with a prayer for enhancement of compensation amount on the ground that the Ld. Tribunal did not consider the entitlement of the claimants as follows:-
i. Claimants were not allowed interest.
ii. Claimants were not allowed future prospect.
iii. Ld. Tribunal did not allow the claim in its entirety and also failed to consider the calculation according to structured formula as indicated in the second schedule of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Decision:-
8. Mr. Sanjoy Paul, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant concentrated his argument only in terms of the manner of accident alleged to have been taken place on 21.05.2005 at about 00.00 hours. Mr. Paul has tried to make this Court understand that entire accident took place involving three vehicles only due to sudden break of the truck running with high speed that too on the National Highway no. 34. Therefore, according to Mr. Paul insurer of that truck i.e. National Insurance Company is only responsible for the entire claim amount.
9. Mr. Ashique Mondal, appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants/cross objectors only concentrated on the issue of enhancement of compensation. In support of his contention, he relied on the case
