Back
2010 Supreme(Ori) 783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.N. Mahapatra, J.
CHANCHALA SAHU AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
D.M., NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
MACA Nos. 464 and 895 of 2006
Decided On : 14-09-2010
The court clarified the determination of compensation under the M.V. Act, 1988, including the deceased's status as a labourer, determination of monthly income, appropriate multiplier, and interest rate.
Headnote:
Labourer - Motor Vehicle Accident - 197 C. SAHU v. D.M., M/S. New India Assurance - M.V. Act, 1988, Second Schedule, Section 171 - The court discussed the deceased's status as a labourer, determination of monthly income, appropriate multiplier, and interest rate under the M.V. Act, 1988. The court held that the deceased was a labourer, determined the monthly income at Rs. 1,500, applied a multiplier of 17, and set the interest rate at 9% per annum.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was a labourer in a truck involved in a road accident. The claimants sought compensation, and the Insurance Company disputed the deceased's status as a labourer and the determination of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was a labourer, determined the monthly income, applied an appropriate multiplier, and set the interest rate under the M.V. Act, 1988.
Issues: Dispute over deceased's status as a labourer, determination of monthly income, appropriate multiplier, and interest rate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased was a labourer, determined the monthly income at Rs. 1,500, applied a multiplier of 17, and set the interest rate at 9% per annum.
Final Decision: The claimants' appeal was allowed in part, and the Insurance Company's appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
B.N. Mahapatra, J. - These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30.3.2006 passed by the Second Addl. District Judge-cum-MACT, Cuttack in M.V. Misc. Case No. 1241 of 2000. MACA No. 464 of 2006 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount whereas MACA No. 895 of 2006 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging correctness of the findings of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was an employee under the owner of the offending truck and not a gratuitous passenger.
2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 29.9.2000 at about 9.30 A.M. a truck bearing Registration No. OR04-6511 carrying instruments and belongings of a Jatra Party met with a road accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and capsized. In the said accident, the deceased sustained severe injury and died being squeezed under the materials and instruments carried in the truck. It was further stated that though signal was given by the Highways personnel for stoppage of the offending truck for checking of documents, the driver of the offending vehicle suddenly swerved to the extreme left side of the road as a result of which one of the wheels of the vehicle slipped into the telephone cable hole following which the vehicle was over turned resulting death of the deceased, some other labourers and Jatra Party members. The further claim of the claimants was that the income of the deceased was their only source of maintenance. The deceased was earning Rs. 3000/-per month as a permanent labourer in the offending vehicle and was contributing Rs. 2500/-towards maintenance of the family. On the death of the deceased, the members of the family are deprived of love and affection besides financial support. With these averments the claimants filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 4.20 lakh from the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle holding them liable jointly and severally for the act of the offending driver.
3. The owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement admitting the fact of accident and engagement of the deceased in his vehicle as labourer on a monthly salary of Rs. 3000/-. According to him, at the relevant time of accident, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the deriver of the offending vehicle had valid driving license for which the Insurance Company is required to indemnify.
3 The Divisional Manager, M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (in short "Insurance Company) Respondent in MACA No. 464 of 2006 and Appellant in MACA No. 895 of 2006 by filing a separate written statement resisted inter alia that the claimants and the owner have colluded for compensation; but admitted coverage of the vehicle with it and taken a stand that the offending truck being registered as goods carrying vehicle was restricted to carry passengers along with goods. Since the offending vehicle was carrying members of a Jatra Party along with their belongings, it violated the term and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The Insurance Company also raised dispute with regard to age, profession and income of the deceased.
4 On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
197 C. SAHU v. D.M., M/S. New India Assurance (B.N. Mahapatra, J.)
(i) Whether due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Regn. No. OR-04-6511 (Truck), the accident took place and in the accident one Brundaban Sahoo succumbed to the injuries?
(ii) Whether all the opp.parties or any of the opp.party is/are liable to pay the compensation?
(iii) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to get compensation?
6. The claimants examined two witnesses whereas the owner of the offending vehicle and Insurance Company examined one witness each. The claimants exhibited five documents marked as Exts. 1 to 5 in support of their claim. The Insurance Company exhibited 11 documents ma
