A claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act requires demonstrating fault on part of the other vehicle, and compensation must account for future prospects and conventional heads, as clarified in the ruling.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. M. A. No. 06 of 2015 and M. A. No. 07 of 2015 have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the impugned judgment of award and compensation in MACT Case No. 83 of 2013 and MACT Case No. 78 of 2013 respectively, whereby and whereunder, compensation has been awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the death of Amir Hussain and Bikash Kumar Rakshit respectively and the liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company to pay the said amounts.

M. A. No. 61 of 2015 has been filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in MACT Case No. 78 of 2013.

Since all these appeals arise out of the same accident, therefore, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by common order.

2. As per the case of the claimants in M. A. No. 06 of 2015 and M. A. No. 07 of 2015, accident took place on 23.12.2012 at 13:40 hours when two motorcycles bearing Registration No. JH 04 A–1690 (wrongly typed as JH 04 A –1630 in the impugned judgment) and No. JH 04 E – 0430 met with head on collusion in which Amir Hussain and Bikash Kumar Rakshit had died.

3. The claimants in MACT Case No. 83 of 2013 are the legal representatives of deceased Amir Hussain whereas the claimants in MACT Case No. 78 of 2013 are the legal representatives of deceased Bikash Kumar Rakshit. MACT Case No. 78 of 2013 was filed impleading the owner of the motorcycle namely Ajijur Rahmam and MACT Case No. 83 of 2013 was filed impleading the owner of the motorcycle namely Bishnu Das.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan, FIR being Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 2007 of 2012 was lodged against both the drivers under Sections 279 , 338 427 and 304A of IPC. After investigation, final form was submitted against both the drivers under the aforesaid sections.

5. It is argued by Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company in M.A. No. 06 of 2015 arising out of M.A.C.T. Case No. 83 of 2013, whereby a compensation of Rs. 5,32,000/- has been imposed on the appellant-Insurance Company, that it is a case of head-on collision between two motorcycles bearing registration No. JH04A-1690 (Bazaz Boxer) being driven by deceased- Amir Hussain and another motorcycle bearing registration No. JH04E- 0430 driven by deceased-Bikash Kumar Rakshit. F.I.R was lodged against the driver of both the vehicles and in the police report both the drivers have been held responsible for causing accident. In this factual circumstance, it is argued that since the fault was equally on the driver of both the vehicles, therefore, the claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was not maintainable. Fundamental ingredient to bring a claim of compensation under Section 166 in contradistinction to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act is that the accident should have resulted on account of fault of the other offending vehicle. Here since the deceased was also at fault, therefore, the claim was not maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

6. It is further argued that contrary to evidence, learned Tribunal in its finding on Issue No. 4 has held the driver of offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JH04E-0430 to be responsible for the accident. With regard to quantum of compensation, it is argued that the consortium of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded which is impermissible in view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and the amount which has already been awarded under Section 140 of M.V. Act was not deducted by awarding the final compensation amount. Further Rs. 6,00,000/- has already b