RANI SAMAL Vs. GADADHAR BEHERA
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
BISWANATH RATH,J. -
(1.) The Appeals bearing MACA Nos.358 & 359 of 2015 are at the instance of the Claimants for enhancement of compensation amount, whereas Appeals bearing MACA Nos.1075 & 1076 of 2015 are at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging liability and quantum as well. All the Appeals arise out of a common judgment involving death of two individuals arising out of one accident but entering into two independent claim cases. For the consent of learned counsel for the Parties and the commonness in the Appeals, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) Background involving the case is that the deceased persons involving all the Appeals faced accident by the offending Truck bearing Regn.No.OR-04-E-7707 alleged to have come in high speed being driven rashly and negligently dashed against both the deceased persons resulting in both the deceased sustained grievous injury on their persons and ultimately also succumbed to injuries. The legal heirs of both the deceased persons, as Claimants involving MACA Nos.358 & 359 of 2015 claimed compensation on the pretext of loss of their sole bread-earners, who were having Grocery business jointly and while they were having their morning walk met with an accident involving the offending Truck involved herein and resulted in their death. The Claimants claimed that deceased persons were earning Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The Claimant involving the deceased, Fakir Charan Sethy filed MAC Case No.624/2011 and the Claimant involving Krushna Chandra Samal filed MAC Case No.625/2011. Both the Claimants claimed compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh each. It also reveals, involving the said accident there also involved a Police case bearing Paradeep Lock P.S. Case No.24/2009 under Sections 279/304(A) of the I.P.C. involving the offending Truck and the Driver involved therein. Upon notice, the Owner of the offending Truck did not appear involving both the cases, consequently the Owner in both the cases got ex parte but however the Insurance Company on its appearance resisted the claims having a common set of case. While denying the liability, the Insurance Company rather called upon the Claimants in both the cases to be put to strict proof of the averments in their respective claim petitions and in the premises, the Insurance Company claimed dismissal of both the cases.
(3.) On the basis of pleading, the Tribunal framed the following issues :-
"(I) Whether due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-04-E-7707, the accident took place resulting in the death of deceased Fakira Charan Sethy and Krushna Chandra Samal ?
(II) Whether the respective petitioners in both the cases are entitled to get compensation, and if so, to what extent ?
(III) Whether the common opposite parties or any of them are/is liable to pay compensation to the respective petitioners in both the cases ?
(IV) What other relief(s), if any, the petitioners in both the cases are entitled to ?"
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.