Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) Mac Case No. 134/2009 was registered on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Barasat, District 24-Parganas North, on an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) presented by the widow and son of one Subal Chandra Saha (hereafter the victim). It was pleaded in the application by the victim's widow and son (hereafter the claimants) that on January 7, 2009, while the victim was travelling with others on a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle (hereafter the scorpio) on National Highway-6, at about 10.30 hours, it was involved in a head-on collision with a heavy motor vehicle (hereafter the truck) which, allegedly, was being driven at a high speed, rashly and negligently. The scorpio was knocked down as a result of which the victim and the other passengers suffered serious bleeding injuries all over their bodies. On the same day, the victim succumbed to his injuries. A few other passengers, who were travelling with the victim, also succumbed to their injuries. The victim, aged about 47 years, was an employee of the Damodar Valley Corporation (hereafter the DVC) and on the relevant date had a monthly income of Rs. 37,215/-. By presenting the claim application, the tribunal was urged to award compensation in a sum of Rs.38,70,360.00 with interest @ 15%. The claimants impleaded the truck's owner, Sukumar Pramanick (hereafter Sukumar) and insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereafter Oriental), as opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively in the claim application. During the pendency of the claim application, a petition under Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure read with section 151 thereof was filed to implead the scorpio's owner, Dipanjan Chowdhury (hereafter Dipanjan) and insurer, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited (hereafter IFFCO TOKIO) as additional opposite parties. The application for amendment was allowed resulting in impleadment of Dipanjan and IFFCO TOKIO as opposite parties. Sukumar filed a written statement but ultimately did not contest the claim application, and Dipanjan did not enter appearance; however, Oriental and IFFCO TOKIO filed their respective written statements and while challenging the maintainability of the claim application, denied their liability in full. Inter alia, in its written statement, IFFCO TOKIO alleged that Dipanjan had breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by allowing the scorpio to be used for hire and reward and, therefore, IFFCO TOKIO was not liable to indemnify Dipanjan. It had also pleaded that the person driving the scorpio did not have a valid driving licence. Oriental alleged that the driver of the truck had no valid driving licence and hence, it was not liable. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence that were adduced before it, the tribunal returned a categorical finding that the victim died as a result of the accident that occurred on January 7, 2009 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the drivers of both the scorpio and the truck and they were equally responsible therefor. The tribunal by looking at the documents relating to the victim's service in the DVC held that he was 51 years old at the time of death and not 47 years, as claimed by the claimants. Considering the age and monthly income of the victim, the tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs.32,84,420.00 together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim application till realization. Since the scorpio and the truck were proved to have been insured by IFFCO TOKIO and Oriental respectively, the insurers were directed to bear the sum determined as compensation in equal shares.
(2.) Oriental satisfied the award resulting in the claimants receiving the payment due from it under the award. IFFCO TOKIO, however, felt aggrieved and dissatisfied with that part of the award whereby IFFCO TOKIO was made liable to bear 50% of the compensation plus interest, payable to the claimants; hence it has carried the award in appeal under section 173 of the Act.
(3.) While hearing the application for stay filed in the appeal, a coordinate Bench by its order dated January 9, 2018 had directed IFFCO TOKIO to secure the amount payable by it under the award. It has complied with such order and the amount is kept in deposit with the Registrar General of this Court. Served with the notice of appeal, the claimants entered appearance and filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.;