Divisional Manager vs Panmati Devi & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1625 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                           M.A. No. 234 of 2018
                                ......

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...... Appellant Versus Panmati Devi & Ors. ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ......

      For the Appellant                    : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
      For the Respondents                  :
                                -----
05/Dated: 06/04/2021.

            Heard, learned counsel for the appellant.

The Appellant- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the award dated 28.11.2017 passed by learned District Judge- III- cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhanbad in T.S. (Motor Vehicle) Case No.67 of 2016 whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.38,91,662/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 15.02.2016 to be paid within 60 days, failing which the interest shall be calculated @ 9% per annum and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the award.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ashutosh Anand has submitted that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake as per the report submitted by the surveyor, Tanmoy Chakraborty enclosing the letter contained in memo No.6176/MV/BST dated 21.11.2017 issued by the Licensing Authority, Barasat, Dist- 24 Pgs (N) whereby the D.L. No. WB-25- 0670898 was reported to be fake as there was no information with regard to the said driving licence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that I.A. No.3941 of 2018 has been filed for adducing additional evidence on this issue as the certificate granted by the licencing authority is of dated 21.11.2017, which could be communicated by the surveyor on 27.11.2017 and the impugned award has been passed on 28.11.2017, as such, there was no occasion for the appellant to adduce this evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that as per the written statement, the appellant has taken the plea that driver had no valid and effective licence to drive the offending vehicle.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned Tribunal has not considered the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that income of the deceased has been wrongly considered, as such, quantum of the compensation may be taken into account by this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that interest has been awarded @ 9% per annum after 60 days, as penal interest, which is not provided under the MV Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is delay of 50 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No.3940 of 2018 has been preferred before this Court.

I.A. No.5961 of 2018 has been filed for stay of the Execution Case No.28 of 2018.

After hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is inclined to issue notice to the respondent nos.1 and 3 so as to consider the quantum of compensation in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 para 8 of which is profitably quoted hereunder:-

"8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation."

This Court is also inclined to examine the concept of penal interest in view of Section 171 of the M.V. Act and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. Transport Corporation, reported in (2008) 4 JCR 79 SC, but since the accident is of dated 10.01.2016, as such, the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lacs before the learned Executing Court along with interest @ 7.5 % from the

date of filing of the claim application which shall be deposited within a period of 60 days from today.

If such amount is deposited by the appellant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Executing Court shall not proceed in Execution Case No.28 of 2018 and the Executing court shall disburse the same to the claimants after proper verification and after taking an affidavit from the claimants that they shall appear before this Court in M.A. No.234 of 2018 within a period of one week.

Accordingly, I.A. No.5961 of 2018, which was filed for stay of award, is hereby disposed of.

Let notice be issued to the contesting respondent no.1- Panmati Devi, W/o Late Ram Bachhan Rai, R/o Qrt. No.3, Near BCCL Guest House, Jiyalgora No.7, P.O., P.S. Jorapokar, District- Dhanbad and respondent no.3- Dinesh Kumar, S/o Late Durjan Kumar, R/o Village Chainiyapur, P.O., P.S. Jiyanpur, Dist. Ajamgarh, Uttar Pradesh (owner of Tanker No.NL-02N-1878) in main memo of appeal as well as in limitation petition i.e. I.A. No.3940 of 2018 and I.A. No.3941 of 2018 filed for bringing on record additional evidence, under both process, i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of two weeks.

The notice shall be executed upon the owner by the Station House Officer of Jiyanpur Police Station in the District of Ajamgarh, Uttar Pradesh.

The Superintendent of Police, Ajamgarh is directed to ensure compliance of the order.

The learned Registrar General of Allahabad High Court is directed to ensure compliance of the order passed by this Court.

Put up this case after service report.

Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the learned Registrar General of Allahabad High Court as well as the Superintendent of Police, Ajamgarh.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.