JUDGMENT

10th July, 2024 B.P. Routray, J.

1. The matters are taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr.S.Das, learned counsel for the Claimants, Mr.G.P.Dutta, learned counsel for Insurer-Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. and Mr. A.A.Khan, learned counsel for Insurer-

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.

3. Both the appeals being arise out of same impugned judgment, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Present appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 21st April 2014 of learned District Judge-cum-Judge MACT, Malkangiri passed in MAC Case No.03 of 2013, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- has been granted along with interest @6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application on account of death of the deceased in the motor-vehicular accident dated 15th February 2010.

5. MACA No.152 of 2015 has been filed by Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., who is the Insurer of the offending Ambulance Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 17:11:00 and MACA No.608 of 2014 has been filed by the Claimants praying for enhancement of compensation amount.

6. The facts of the case is that, the deceased namely, Ratna @ Ratnamala Mohanty died involving the accident between Ambulance bearing registration No.OR-02-AY-3272 and Lorry bearing registration No.NL-01-G-1878, when the deceased was travelling in the Ambulance accompanying her ailing father. The accident took place on 15th February 2010 on the NH when the Ambulance dashed with the Lorry.

7. The Tribunal assessed negligence of the drivers of both vehicles at 50% each and accordingly shared the compensation amount for payment by the respective Insurer of Ambulance and the Lorry. The Ambulance was insured with Reliance General Insurnce Co. Ltd. and the Lorry with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. The Insurer of the Lorry deposited their share of compensation amount without preferring any appeal. But the Insurer of the Ambulance has come up in appeal questioning the negligence on the part of their driver.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 17:11:00

8. Mr.Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurer submits that the driver of the Ambulance was not charge-sheeted under Section 279 whereas, the driver of the Lorry was charge-sheeted by police under Section 279. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the driver of the Ambulance is not established.

9. It is seen that, the fact that the Ambulance dashed the standing Lorry from back side has remained undisputed. The eye witness Viz. P.W.2 has clearly stated in his evidence regarding negligent driving of the Ambulance driver. Based on such materials the Tribunal has concluded regarding negligence on the part of the driver of the Ambulance as well as the driver of the Lorry. For the mere reason that police did not submit charge-sheet for negligent driving on the part of Ambulance driver would not per se exclude the driver of the Ambulance from negligence, since negligent driving at the time of accident is a matter of evidence to be appreciated by the Court. So keeping in view the materials brought on record against the driver of the Ambulance, all such contentions raised by Mr.Dutta to exempt him from the negligence in causing the accident and consequently to exempt the Insurer from the Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 17:11:00 liability are rejected. In this regard the finding of the Tribunal is confirmed.

10. The Claimants have filed MACA No.608 of 2014 praying for enhancement of compensation amount on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously taken notional income of the deceased instead of calculating her income at the minimum wage rate.

11. The deceased was a woman and according to the statements of Petitioner’s witnesses, she was earning her income by tailoring and preparing leaf plates. She was aged about 45 years on the date of accident and according to the Claimants, she was earning Rs.5000/- per month. But t