Insurer Non-Applicant no. National Insurance Company v. Jeevan Sahu

SB: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE q^ Misc. Appeal (C) N0,824 of 2012 Appellant Respondents National Limited Insurance- Company Versus Jeevan Sahu and others, Present: Shri Qamrut Aziz, counsej for the appellant. Shri PrakashMishra, counsel for respondents 1& 2. . •'•»» Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor_Vehjcles Acti 1988 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15th February, 2013) Heard.

#2. This is an appeat filed by the appellant/lnsurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against award dated 04-04-2012 passed by the AdditionalMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.11/2011.

#3. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Act and awarded a total sum of Rs.3,75,000/- by way of compensation to the claimants for the death of their daughter Ku. Manisha Sahu, who died in vehicular accident.

#4. Also heard oh I.A. Nb.Ol, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is barred by 53 days.

#5. I have gone through the cause stated in the it constitutes a sufficient application and in my opinion, cause for The condonation of delay advances cause of justice rather than the purposeof condoning the detay. K: fe*"* '.; .f • ^.^^ R^':?:'^ KWV BsNS^S ^•;y^'w Bf ^h to defeat it. There is no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in filing the ipresent appeal and, therefore, delay deserves to be condoned on the grounds stated in the application.

#6. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, the application (I.A. No.Ql) is allowed. The detay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

#7. So the challenge in this appeal is to the quantum of compensation which according to the appellant is on higher side and hence it should be reduced from Rs.3,75,000/- toa lesseramount? ^ •'-<

#8. At the outset, 1 may mention that so far as issue relating to negligence and liability are concerned, issues are not in dispute because they were decided in favour of the claimants (parents) by the Tribunal. It is, therefore, not necessary for this Court to examine these issues while deciding the appeal.

#9. It is a death c&se &f a child aged 11 years who died on 05.4.2011 in one Vehicular accident. The deceased Ku. Manisha Sahu was a minor daughter of the claimants. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,75,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per ahnum to the claimants (father and mother) of the child. I have gone through the evidence. 1 am of the opinion 10, that this appeal deserves t& be allowed in part to the extent indicated infra.

#11. I have taken note of the judicial precedents on the issue of award of compensation in child death cases or 1 may say cases where young boy/girl who expired in their youth and'while studying havingno income at their own, reported in 2001 ACJ 160 and other decisions, wherein their of Supreme Court while allowing the appeal fited by the New India Insurance Company awarded to ctaimants a sum^,Rs^,80,5Q(^/-fei-|the cleath ofa child aged 9 years and in cases where age was more, awarded more compensation which has gone upto Rs. 2,25,000/-. A.

#12. I have seen the evidence adduced in the present i.e. Manisha Sahy, aged about 11 years, was a case. The girl hale and hearty0ri6. Taking intb consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in theabove menfcioned cases, 1 am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deceased is on higher ?'^ide. to the parents (claimants) of the reducethe therefore, I, compensation froms Rs.3,75,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- as just and proper compensation for the death of Ku. Manisha Sahu.

#13. I, accordingly, consider it proper to award a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimants (parents) by way of compensation for the death of Ku. Manisha Sahu. This the rate of 6% per annum the claim petition before the amount shall carry interest at from the date of filing of Tribunal.

#14. In my opinion the compensation which 1 have awarded to the claimant is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases in relation to several heads taken note of supra with reference to evidence brought on record by the parties. Indeed, in sych cases, no fixed and any static formula provided compensation and the same is required to be determined on determining the basis of totality of evidence adduced and the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration as mentioned supra. It is on is basis, the Courts have to work out award of reasonabte compensation to the claimant.

#15. The appeal, filed by the Insurance company is allowed to the above extent and the impugned award is modified by ^.••^^s^ EKSiBS • K!i fi&.. i'aS. "'S^S'^ !^??s. reducing^the Rs.2,00,000/-.

#16. No eost. -A- ^ compensation from Rs.3,75,000/- " ~" Bini Sd/- (Abhay Manohar JUDGE