Partly allowed

Branch Manager,Bajaj Allianz G.I.Co.Ltd. v. Dandapani Behera

Orissa HC25 Jan 2019MACA/229/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Affirmed the Tribunal's compensation of Rs.1 lakh for death in a vehicular accident, declining interference based on the modest amount. Directed insurer to pay principal plus interest and disapproved, that the award of penal interest at 9% per annum, being unjustified against an insurance company.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs.1 lakh affirmed; insurer directed to pay award + standard interest within 6 weeks; course of appeal against award quashed and interest rate corrected.

Branch Manager,Bajaj Allianz G.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Dandapani… — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

M.A.C.No.229 of 2017

¶2

3 25.01.2019

¶3

Heard Mr.Khan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned Advocate for the claimantrespondents.

¶4

For the death occurred in a vehicular accident, the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Southern Division), Berhampur, Ganjam for compensation. The deceased-Sashi Behera was the wife of claimant no.1 and mother of claimant nos.2 to 6. The case of the claimants was that the deceased was waiting near the vehicle (Tata Ace ) bearing registration no.OR-07-V-1491 after performing puja to go to Tara Tarini temple. At that time the driver of the vehicle started the vehicle, drove carelessly with high speed and dashed against her, as a result of which, she fell down and the vehicle ran over. Immediately thereafter she was shifted to the Government (Area) Hospital at Purushottampur and then to CHC, Bhatakumarada for treatment. She succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was 45 years at the time of accident. She was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by selling fish.

¶5

Pursuant to issuance of notice, the insurer entered appearance and contest the case. The owner of the vehicle did not contest the case and was set ex parte. It is stated that the deceased was a passenger in a goods carrying vehicle and as such the insurance company should be exonerated from its liability. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence on record, learned Tribunal came to hold that due to rash and negligent driving, the accident took place.

¶6

Held so, it awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and directed the Insurer to pay the same with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, failing which, the same will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶7

Criticizing the award, Mr.Khan, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the deceased was a passenger in a goods carrying vehicle. The insurer should be exonerated from its liability. Further no right of recovery has been given.

¶8

Per contra, Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the claimants submits that a paltry amount has been awarded to the claimants. The award amount is just and proper.

¶9

This is a case of death. Considering the amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere with same. It is open to the insurer to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, if recoverable.

¶10

With regard to interest, learned Tribunal is not justified in awarding the penal interest. The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest before the learned Tribunal within six weeks from today, whereafter the same shall be deposited in the name of the claimants and disbursed to them by the learned Tribunal in terms of its order.

¶11

The statutory deposit made before this Court be returned to the learned counsel for the appellant with accrued interest thereon after deposit of the award amount before the learned Tribunal.

¶12

The MACA is disposed of.

¶13

………………………… Dr.A.K.Rath, J.

¶14

Branch Manager,Bajaj Allianz G.I.Co.Ltd. v. Dandapani Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager,Bajaj Allianz G.I.Co.Ltd. v. Dandapani Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balunkeswar Das Vs State

Smt.Suryamani Vs Padma

Purna Ch Mishra Vs State of Orissa

Surendra Moharana Vs Haramani Dash

Madan Mohan Sahoo Vs State

Divl.Manager,M/S.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Saraswati Buliolly