- (1.) REFERENCE may be made to the order dated 20.6.2003 which reads as under : "Heard the counsel for the parties. (2) In the instant case the deceased who was only 26 years of age died leaving behind his widow, minor children and old parents. The annual income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/ -. The Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,59,000/ - together with 12% interest. Aggrieved by the said award the claimant filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. (3) When this matter was placed before us to pursue the parties for disposal of the matter by Lok Adalat, counsel for the claimant, as a good gesture, agreed to settle the dispute on the amount awarded by Tribunal but on payment of interest atleast @ 9% which the Supreme Court has awarded in many cases. (4) It is unfortunate that the United India Insurance Company is insisting that it shall settle the claim only when the interest on the awarded amount is reduced from 12% to 6%. (5) Recently in the case of Chinnama George and Ors. v. N.K. Raju and Anr. on the death of a person of the age of 36 years the Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 3,78,000/ -. Similarly in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 (2) Unreported Judgment SC 110, on the death of the deceased aged 27 years the Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/ -. (6) We appreciate the claimant who agreed to resolve the dispute at a very unreasonable amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal but the Insurance Company who has not even challenged the award by filing appeal is behaving like a Money Lender or like a private person. We record our serious anguish and displeasure on the conduct of the Insurance Company and their officers and direct the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the Company to appear in person before this court on Monday i.e. on 23.6.2003. On that date we may pass appropriate order taking into consideration the harsh attitude and the conduct of the Insurance Company. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the counsel for the United India Insurance Company for perusal of the C.M.D."
(2.) TODAY the Chairman -cum -Managing Director has not appeared in person rather an application has been filed stating his inability to appear before this Court. The Regional Manager of this region has appeared in person. He also stated before this Court that he shall riot settle the claim unless the rate of interest is reduced to 6%. Seeing their attitude, we have no option but to hear this matter on merit. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned award on the ground that the driver who was driving the truck was holding Light Motor Vehicle License, which is a breach of the insurance policy and therefore Insurance Company is not liable to pay awarded amount.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent/claimant on the other hand submitted that when the appeal is being heard on merit then the compensation amount is liable to be increased for the reason that the deceased was aged about 26 years and his annual income was Rs. 15,000/ - which fact has not been disputed by the appellant. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinions that the amount was awarded by the Tribunal although is on a very lower side but in absence of any cross objection from the side of the claimant, we are not inclined to increase the awarded amount. However, the fact remains that till date claimant/respondents have not got the awarded amount of compensation, although the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was quite reasonable. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with a cost of Rs. 20,000/ -.;