Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors

C. A. No. 3731 of 2002 Facts in brief are that on 15.4.1988 at about 4.00 p.m. an accident took place at Kharjan Pol of Sahab Pathar, Tingrai, a place between Tinsukia and Digboi in the State of Assam wherein two vehicles, namely, Maruti car bearing registration No. UPI 237 and a bus bearing registration No. ASQ 8446, were involved in a head-on collision. Raj Kumar Dugar, the owner of the Maruti car, died in the accident on the spot. Bidya Dhar Dutta, respondent No. 1, is the owner of the bus and Ajay Baruah, respondent No. 2 herein, was driving the offending bus, when it met with an accident. The bus was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited- respondent No.3. The car of the deceased was not insured as he had purchased it hardly a day or two before the accident. The appellant-Bijoy Kumar Dugar and his wife-Smt. Panna Devi Dugar [now dead] were the original claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT'), Tinsukia. They claimed a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents. The MACT, relying upon the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and Ajay Baruah, driver-respondent No. 2, both were driving their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and the accident was as a result of their contributory negligence for which the insurer respondent No. 3 was liable to pay half of the amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 1,76,800/-, to the claimants. It also directed that the amount of compensation as awarded be paid with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount of compensation, the claimants filed MAC Appeal No. 56/2000 before the High Court. The Oriental Insurance Company also challenged the award in Writ Petition (C) No.4418/2000, on the sole ground that the Company is not liable to pay interest on the compensation amount from 1988 as directed by the MACT. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, but allowed the writ petition of the insurer holding the claimants entitled to interest on the award amount only for a period of two years, i.e. from 10.1.1989 to October, 1990 when the Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement before the MACT. The Award to that extent, accordingly, was modified. Now, the claimants are before this Court in these two appeals assailing the correctness and validity of the judgments and orders dated 19th July, 2001 passed by the High Court. During the pendency of these appeals, claimant Smt. Panna Devi Dugar had died and her legal representatives are proforma respondents herein.

For the above said reasons, we find that the amount of compensation awarded by the MACT to the claimants is just and equitable and warrants no further enhancement. We find the pleas raised by the claimants wholly untenable as there is no material on record to sustain them. Hence, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation stands dismissed.

Being aggrieved against the said order of the High Court, the claimants have filed this appeal contending that the writ petition of the Insurance Company against the award of interest on the amount of compensation by the MACT was not maintainable when it had not obtained the right to contest the proceedings on merit under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, the High Court modified the Award of the MACT to the extent that the Insurance Company is only liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of compensation from 10th January, 1989 to October 1990, when it filed written statement to the claim petition and prior to those dates the insurer was not at fault.

In our view, the above judgment clinches the issue that the writ petition filed by the Insurance Company was not maintainable against the order of the MACT awarding interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the institution of the claim petition till the date of payment. The impugned order, accordingly, is set aside. This appeal is allowed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The award of the MACT granting compensation to the claimants along with interest is fully justified and it is accordingly maintained. The parties are left to bear their own costs.