SUNDARI DEI Vs. DILIP KUMAR SABAT
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Dilip Kumar Sabat
Click here to view full judgement.
R.N.Mishra, J. -
(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 directed against the award of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, asking for enhancement of the compensation.
(2.) ACCORDING to the claimants, one Bansidhar Mohanty and some others were sitting under the thatched roof of the shop of one Sankar Jena located on the link road connecting the Cuttack -Paradeep High Way at a place known as Ghangalia Chakanot far away from the Paradeep P.S. at about 9.30 p.m. on 7.7.74. O.R.U. 4591 - -motor truck - -belonging to Dilip Kumar Sabat (Respondent No. 1) which was being driven in a reckless manner and at high speed came from the side of Ghangalia Chaka and turned to the right side of the road and ran over the persons including Bansidhar Mohanty who were sitting there. As a result of the accident, Bansidhar died and two others were injured. Bansidhar's widow and three minor sons and a minor daughter laid claim for compensation of Rs. 47,500/ -. The claimants alleged that Bansidhar was a mason earning about Rs. 250/ - a month and was contributing a sum of Rs. 150/ - a month for the maintenance of the family. He was only 32 years of age and with his death the family has been deprived of the only source of living. The vehicle was admittedly insured with the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 2) The owner and also the Insurer entered contest. The owner took the stand that the vehicle was not being run rashly and negligently at the relevant time. That at the point of time of the accident, the vehicle was not being driven for the purpose of the owner and that the amount claimed was excessive. The Insurer took the further plea that the driver had no valid licence and the truck had no valid permit.
(3.) THE widow was examined as P. W. 1 and some more witnesses were also examined to support the claim. The Respondent No. 1 examined himself. The Tribunal found that the accident had taken place as alleged and Bansidhar had been run over and killed. He found that the deceased must have been contributing Rs. 50/ - per month for the family and on the basis that he was 32 at the time of death and on the footing that he would have remained active and capable of earning till twenty more years, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 10,000/ -. In the absence of challenge, the liability of the Respondents for compensating to the extent awarded has become final. The claimants have further carried the appeal being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.