Court clarified liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act; enhanced compensation requires considering proper deductions and established precedents.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

2. The Appellants– Claimants assailing the judgment dated 26.02.2018 passed by the learned 3^rd M.A.C.T., Rourkela in MAC Case No.187 of 2015 awarding a compensation of Rs.29,76,000/- to the Claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 26.06.2015 have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount and with a prayer to saddle the liability on Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, inter alia, on the ground that the basis on which Respondent No.1-owner was found to be liable is ex facie illegal in view of the R.C. Book on record vide Ext.A in the light of the definition of Light Motor Vehicles in terms of Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The Appellants as Claimants filed the aforesaid M.A.C Case claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Bata Krushna Samal who was working as a senior technician in SAIL, RSP, Rourkela and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. The deceased while going to his duty by bicycle the offending vehicle bearing registration number OR-14N-8040 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased as a result of which, he sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.

In such claim application, the owner of the offending vehicle was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1 and was set ex parte. Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement denying the assertions made in the claim petition.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed;

“i. Whether Batakrushna Samal died in a vehicular accident which took place near Naya Bazar chowk, Rourkela on 27.7.10 at about 5.30 AM due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any compensation and if so, what would be the just compensation?

(iii) Whether O.P. No. 1 and 2 liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners?”

In order to substantiate their stand, Petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and one independent witness was examined as P.W.2 and documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 13.

Insurance Company has examined one witness as OPW.1 and documents were marked as Exts.A to C.

Considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.29,76,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants, Mr. Panigrahi that learned Tribunal has ex facie proceeded on the wrong premises that the vehicle in question is a heavy motor vehicle and the driver had no valid driving licence to drive such vehicle as such absolved the Insurance Company from paying the compensation. It is his further submission that the compensation amount is also liable to be enhanced.

6. Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, opposed such submission on both the counts.

7. On a perusal of the photocopy of the R.C. book of the offending vehicle, vide Ext.A it is seen that unladen weight of the offending vehicle is 2585 Kg.

Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, [Sec.2(21) of the M.V Act, 1988] deals with “light motor vehicle”. For convenience Section 2 (21) is extracted hereunder:

“2. Definitions.-

(11) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7