AASIN BAI Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 16.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mahasamund, in Claim Case No. 44/2009. Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal in a death case of 27 years bachelor has awarded a compensation of Rs.51,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application after quantifying compensation at Rs.1,02,000/- and assessing 50 percent of contributory negligence on the part of deceased.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded is on lower side and the same ought to have been much more than what has been awarded. He submits that the notional income also is unreasonably low considering the fact that accident occurred in March, 2009. Further, the findings of contributory negligence is also without any substantive material placed/adduced by any of the parties before the Tribunal and the said finding is only on assumption and presumption. It was lastly contended that the Tribunal has also erred inasmuch as exonerating the insurance company of its liability. Considering the facts that the vehicle was duly insured and the exoneration was only on the ground that driver was not having valid licence at the time of accident, the insurance company by this ground alone could not have been absolved of its liability.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company opposing the appeal submits that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is a well reasoned and justified finding and the compensation also has been rightly assessed and there is no scope of any interference in the award and prayed for rejection of the appeal. He further submits that it is a case where the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the insurance company i.e. witness from the office of RTO and have reached to the conclusion that the evidence led by the said witness to be doubtful and suspicious. Therefore, the insurance company has rightly been exonerated and the appeal deserves to be rejected.