Man Dies As Tractor Carrying Him Capsizes; Orissa HC Upholds Rs 1.96 Lakh Award Against Insurer

On 2 January 2002, a tractor carrying Bhawani Pratap Singh Deo capsized at San Nuagaon, causing his death.

A criminal case was registered, and a charge sheet was filed against the driver for rash and negligent driving.

The deceased’s dependants brought claims in MAC Case Nos. 425 and 426 of 2003.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,96,500 with simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim applications.

The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the compensation and its liability to pay.

Respondent 3 had died without being substituted, and the appeal against that respondent stood abated.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal to the High Court against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The judgment states no further statutory provision or precedent as the basis of decision.

The court considered whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation or direction requiring the insurer to pay disclosed an error warranting appellate interference.

The court accepted the evidence establishing that the deceased died because of the driver’s rash and negligent driving, and found the claim maintainable.

It considered the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 3,000 reasonable in the circumstances.

Although the Tribunal had used a multiplier of 12 despite the parents’ ages being 56 and 59, the claimants had not challenged the quantum; the court found no illegality warranting disturbance of the award, particularly after the passage of approximately 23 years.

As the vehicle was insured and the driver held a valid driving licence, the court found no infirmity in directing the insurer to pay.

It directed the insurer to pay Rs. 1,96,500 with simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim applications until realization, within eight weeks.

The share of deceased Respondent 3 was to be apportioned equally between Respondents 1 and 2, and the statutory deposit was to be refunded to the insurer upon proof of payment to the Tribunal.