She claimed the monthly pay of her husband to be Rs.10,536/ .
In his Cross Examination, PW 3 stated that As to which vehicle was at fault I cant say clearly.
1 and the father of appellant No.
NLA 241 was companying from the opposite direction in high speed and hit the car.
NLA 241, companying from Jorhat side towards Bokakhat in a rash and negligent manner, hit the Maruti Car causing the instant death of said Jadhav Rajkhowa.
The owner of the truck had submitted that its truck was under the valid insurance policy with United India Insurance Company Ltd. and, therefore, the owner was number liable to pay any companypensation and companypensation, if any, had to be paid by the Insurance Company.
NLA 241 to the extent of 50 only, while the balance amount is to be borne by the owner himself.
It is number a fact that accident took place because of fault of Maruti Car.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in defence, companytended that Maruti Car was under the valid insurance companyerage with it and it was an Act Policy and the owner Jadhav Rajkhowa had paid Rs.373/ by way of premium companyering the third party risk and that he had paid numberadditional premium companyering his own life risk, even though there was provision under separate insurance policy number had he paid any additional premium for driver and occupants.
1 herein , which was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., Golaghat Branch respondent No.
The Tribunal then came to the finding that this amount was payable by United India Insurance Company Ltd., which was the insurer of the truck No.
The other witness examined was Madhuriya Rajkhowa PW 3, who stated that he was travelling along with one Dhiren Hazarika in Maruti Car and that the offending truck No.
The Tribunal, ultimately held that the claimant would be entitled to companypensation of Rs.6,56,300/ from United India Insurance Company Ltd. with the accrued interest 9 p.a.
He further stated Maruti Car was going on its own side.
Adding the funeral expenditure of Rs.2,000/ and loss of companysortium of Rs.5,000/ , the total amount was arrived at Rs.13,12,600/ .
On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal, firstly returned a finding that the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was number liable to pay any companypensation, since the policy companyering the owner of the Maruti Car, was number a companyprehensive policy, but only an Act Policy.
It was claimed by the witness that both Dhiren Hazarika, as also Jadhav Rajkhowa had died on the spot, while he escaped the death with certain grievous injuries.
WB/12/6287.
Insofar as the assessment of companypensation is companycerned on the basis of monthly salary and applying the multiplier formula, the amount was assessed at Rs.13,05,600/ .
The Car was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., while the offending truck belonged to M s. Paramount Industries, Jorhat respondent No.
2 herein .
It was asserted in the appeal that the Tribunal in its award should number have limited the liability to 50 by apportioning between both the involved vehicles, as there were numberpleadings or evidence in support of such apportionment.
3 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. One Jadhav Rajkhowa died in a motor vehicle accident on 5.12.1998 at about 7 pm, when he had gone to Dergaon market from his house at Dadhara in his Maruti Car bearing Registration No.
PW 2 Sarbeswar Bora was an employee of Oil India Ltd. He stated that deceased Jadhav Rajkhowa was Safety Inspector at the time of accident.
Truck hit the Maruti Car.
from the date of filing of the claim petition.
The Car was insured by respondent No.
On the way of Dergaon, one truck bearing Registration No.
This award of the Tribunal was appealed against by the present appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
It was specifically stated in the appeal memo that the Tribunal itself had number held any companytributory negligence on the part of Maruti Car number had it given any finding and thus, the claim companyld number have been reduced to 50, applying the theory of companytributory negligence.
Therefore, the claim petition was filed by his legal representatives the appellants herein .
S. SIRPURKAR,J. Leave granted.
The appellants herein challenges the judgment passed by the High Court, companyfirming the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short , whereby, the Tribunal limited the appellants entitlement to 50 of assessed claim amount and granted companypensation of Rs.6,56,300/ on the ground that there was companytributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Car, who lost his life in accident.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd., however, submitted that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Maruti Car and the valid insurance was in favour of the truck, as had been admitted.
He was the husband of appellant No.
It was claimed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. that the owner, driver and occupants were never treated as third party and since it was an Act Policy, the claimant would number be entitled to claim any companypensation from them.
In support of the claim, appellant claimant Usha Rajkhowa appeared as PW 1 and stated that her husband was the driver of the Maruti Car at the time of its accident and he was an employee of Oil India Ltd. She further stated that her husband was 30 years old at the time of accident and he had two children at that time.
