Reliance General Insurance ... vs Yasoda Devi & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2907 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                    M.A. No. 449 of 2018
                              ........

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited ..... Appellant Versus Yasoda Devi & Others ... ...... Respondents

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

For the Appellant (s)             : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the Respondents               :
                                  ........
05/16.08.2021

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Swati Shalini. This appeal has been preferred by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. against the award dated 14.02.2018 passed by learned District Judghe-II-cum-M.A.C.T., Giridih in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 45 of 2013, whereby the claimants namely, (1) Yasoda Devi, w/o Late Divari Lal @ Kuldip Singh, (2) Krishna Gopal, S/o Late Divari Lal @ Kuldip Singh and (3) Ram Gopal, S/o Late Divari Lal @ Kuldip Singh, have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,81,600/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 19.07.2013 till realization within a period of sixty days from the date of award, failing which, the claimants will be at liberty to realize the same through the process of court and interest @9% per annum shall be calculated after expiry of 60 days.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal has been preferred with delay of 46 days and for condonation of same, I.A. No. 1874/2020 has been preferred.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that so far the claimants are concerned, the learned Tribunal has wrongly granted compensation to the claimants in a case where the deceased, who was driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. HR-38J-6994, which dashed with Truck bearing registration No. JH-05AC-5325, as such application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was itself not maintainable, although, said issue has been framed as Issue No.1 and while adjudicating Issue Nos. 4 and 5 at paragraph 14 of the impugned award, though the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased Divarilal @ Kuldip Singh died due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No. HR-38J-6994, but failed to consider that the deceased was himself the

driver of the said Truck, as such in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Meena Variyal & Others reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428, the claim application is not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act, though the claimants are entitled for compensation under Workmen Compensation Act from the owner of the offending vehicle.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in paragraph-12 of the written statement at Page-30, it is stated that :-

"Route Permit, Fitness Certificate, Registration Book, Tax Token, Original Policy of Insurance and valid and effective token licence of the driver of the Truck bearing Registration No. HR-38J- 6994 with endorsement of H.G.V. badge on the driving licence, if such, should be directed to be produced on the claims case record by the owner of the vehicle and should be proved to be genuine and reliable documents, failing which, it shall be presumed that there is violation of the Statutory terms and conditions of the policy of insurance as provided under Section 149(2) and 147 of the M.V. Act 1988 and this O.P. (Insurance Company) shall not be liable to pay any sum to the claimants according to law, either under Section 140 or 166 of the M.V. Act,1988 as, legally, this O.P. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is protected under Section 149(2) and 147 of the M.V. Act in payment of any compensation to the claim applicants due to violations of the terms, conditions, and restriction of the policy of insurance, if any.

Infact, unless and until the driver of the vehicle holding a valid and effective driving licence with endorsement of H.G.V. badge on the D.L., this O.P. is not liable to pay any sum as compensation to the claim applicants either under Section 140 or 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, however this case stands on different footing as the cause of death of the deceased of this case is 100% contributory negligence of the deceased himself as per FIR/Fardbeyan and also as per police final report showing the guilty driver as dead in accident".

As such, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if the owner has appeared but has not produced the documents, as such, notice may be issued upon owner of the offending vehicle.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, let notice be issued upon respondent nos. 1 to 4, namely, (1)Yasoda Devi, Wife of Late Divari Lal @ Kuldip Singh, (2) Krishna Gopal, Son of Late Divari Lal @ Kuldip Singh, (3) Ram Gopal, Son of Late Divari Lal @ Kuldip Singh, (1) to (3) all resident of Village - Nathuram Bomnai, P.O. - Kakrawali, P.S. - Pilno, District - Etah, State - Uttar Pradesh and (4) Jaspal Singh, son of Jogindra Singh, Resident of G.5/6 P Model Town, P.O. & P.S. - Model Town, Delhi and at present Resident of 542, Sector-59, P.O. & P.S. - Sector-59, Faridabad, Haryana (Owner of the Offending Truck bearing registration no. HR-38J-6994), both in limitation petition as well as in main memo of appeal 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 one week.

Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad as well as Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh are directed to ensure the compliance of the order.

Let a copy of order be communicated to the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad as well as Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh.

So far I.A. No.1873 of 2020 is concerned, as the office has pointed out defect that in the impugned award, Divari Lal @ Kuldip Singh @ Kallu, the driver of the offending vehicle has been impleaded as a party, it is unfortunate that a dead person has been impleaded as party in claim application and on the basis of that the Registry has pointed out the defect.

I.A. No.1873 of 2020 is dismissed as infructuous and the defect is hereby ignored.

Put up this appeal after service of notice.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/Tarun