National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Fagni Bai and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot.....order1. heard the counsel for the parties.2. a young man of 34 years employed in central coalfield limited died in a motor vehicle accident. at the relevant time he was getting gross salary of rs. 9000/-. the claims tribunal awarded compensation of rs. 12,45,000/-.3. the appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal challenging only the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims tribunal.4. at the very outset we are of the view that the insurance company cannot assail the award only on the ground of quantum of compensation. in this connection reference may be made to a decision in the case of chinnama george v. n.k. raju 2000 acj 777 (sc), wherein it was held that if none of the conditions as contained in sub-section (2) of section 149 exists for the insurer to avoid the liability,.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. A young man of 34 years employed in Central Coalfield Limited died in a motor vehicle accident. At the relevant time he was getting gross salary of Rs. 9000/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 12,45,000/-.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

4. At the very outset we are of the view that the Insurance Company cannot assail the award only on the ground of quantum of compensation. In this connection reference may be made to a decision in the case of Chinnama George v. N.K. Raju 2000 ACJ 777 (SC), wherein it was held that if none of the conditions as contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 149 exists for the insurer to avoid the liability, the insurer is legally bound to satisfy the award and the insurer cannot be a person aggrieved by the award. In such a case, the insurer will be barred from filing an appeal against the award of the Tribunal. It was also held that the insurer cannot maintain a joint appeal along with the owner or driver if defence of any ground under Section 149 (2) is not available to it.

5. Besides the above, it appears that the Claims Tribunal deducted l/3rd amount from the salary towards personal expenses. Even if we deduct l/3rd out of the monthly salary of the deceased towards personal expenses, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 6000/-. Taking into consideration the monthly dependency at Rs. 6000/-, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 72,000/-. If we take 18 years of purchase and mutiply the same with the annual dependency, a reasonable compensation comes to Rs. 12,26,000/-. Since the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 12,96000/- we do not find any reason to differ with the assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons we find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.