SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Cal) 974

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sumitra Roy & Anr. – Respondents
FMA 3127 of 2013
Decided On : 30-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Paul, Ms. Jaita Ghosh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Saidur Rahaman.

IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is payable upon proof of death in an accident, regardless of the absence of a specific police case.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court interpreted the provisions of Section 163A, emphasizing the entitlement to compensation for death in motor vehicle accidents, and applied the new schedule for determining compensation.

Fact of the Case:

The victim was involved in a fatal accident with an insured motor vehicle. The claimants sought compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which the insurance company contested, arguing the vehicle was not involved in the accident.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the insurance company failed to prove its claims regarding the vehicle's unavailability and upheld the tribunal's decision to grant compensation based on the victim's notional income.

Issues: Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act despite its claims regarding the vehicle's involvement in the accident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a specific police case does not negate the claim for compensation under Section 163A, and the tribunal's assessment of the victim's income was reasonable.

Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the insurance company was ordered to pay an additional compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) :

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 18th March, 2013 passed by Ld. Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri, in M.A.C. Case No. 109 of 2008, under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Facts as stated by the claimants:-

    “On 3.1.08 at about 11 a.m. the victim was proceeding in a bi-cycle from Dhantala towards Krantimore and the offending motor cycle bearing no. WB-72C/9032 came and suddenly dashed the victim and the victim received severe injuries and died at the hospital. Hence, this case”

3. Both the opposite parties contested the case by filing separate written statements and denying therein all the material allegations in the claim petition.

4. The O.P./owner submitted that the case was not maintainable in its present form and law and the facts as mentioned in the claim petition regarding accident are partly correct and partly denied and all the allegations of the claimant in this case are false. Hence, this O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.

5. The O.P./Insurance Company submitted that the case was not maintainable in its present form and law and the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver concerned and the offending vehicle met an accident on 20.12.07 and it was lying with B.R. Automobiles for repair and it was released after repair, after 12.1.08 and no police case was started for the accident in the present case and all the allegations of the claimant in this case are false. Hence, this O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.

6. The Claimant examined two witnesses and proved relevant documents.

7. The O.P. /Insurance Company examined one witness and proved some documents.

8. The P.M report, which has been marked as (Ext. 8), the dead body challan (Ext. 5) and the death certificate (Ext. 6) show the death of the victim of this case.

9. The copy of the Insurance policy, which has been marked as Ext.3, shows that at the time of the incident, the offending vehicle was insured with the O.P, Insurance Company.

10. The Tribunal granted compensation as follows :-

“M.A.C. Case No. 109 of 2008

Dated: 18th March, 2013

 

 ………….. As per the claim petition the victim used to earn Rs. 3000/- per month from his business but the claimant has not produced any paper in this respect. Hence, I hold that the claimant has failed to prove it. But at present a day labourer earns not less than Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per year As such I hold that the annual income of the victim at the time of incident was Rs. 36,000/- and after deduction of 1/3rd of the said amount towards the personal expenses of the victim, the annual income of the victim comes to Rs.24,000/- p.a. and by applying the said multiplier of 16, the compensation amount comes to Rs.3,84,000/-. In addition, the claimant will get Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- as loss of estate. In all, the total compensation amount comes to Rs.3,88,500/-.

So, considering the entire materials on record, I hold that the case is maintainable in its present form and law and the claimant has cause of action to file this case and she is entitled to get Rs.3,88,500/- from the O.P. Insurance Company…………

Sd/-

Judge, M.A.C. Tribunal

2ndCourt, Jalpaiguri”

11. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the ground :-

    That as no specific police case was registered in respect of the accident in this case, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation and that the vehicle in this case was not involved in the accident.

12. From the materials and evidence on record, the following is evident :–

    i. The Appellant/Insurance Company has taken a plea that the offending vehicle met with an accident on 20.12.07, that is, prior to the accident in this case which occurred on 03.01.2008.

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top