Jharkhand High Court
M/S Ajay Engicon Pvt. Ltd. vs Anwari Bibi on 2 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 2012
M/s Ajay Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Anwari Bibi
2. Sayeed Sarwar
3. Reshma Khatoon
4. Mir Auranjeb Alam
5. Mir Rafique Anjum
6. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi
7. Mr. Bhola Yadav
8. Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi
.... .... Respondents
With
Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2012
M/s Ajay Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Ajhari Bibi
2. Ashmin Khatoon
3. Nazmin Khatoon
4. Roji Khatoon
5. Sekh Azharul
6. Afsari Bibi
7. Sekh Mustafa
8. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi
9. Mr. Bhola Yadav
10. Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi
.... .... Respondents
With
Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 2012
M/s Ajay Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Anwari Bibi
2. Sayeed Sarwar
3. Reshma Khatoon
4. Mir Auranjeb Alam
5. Mir Rafique Anjum
6. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi
7. Mr. BholaYadav
8. Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi
.... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Harendra Kr. Singh,
D.K. Maltityar, B. Sinha, Nikhil Ranjan, Advocates
C.A.V. ON 23.11.2021 PRONOUNCED ON 02 / 12 / 2021
1. All these three misc. appeals have been preferred against the
common award of compensation in Compensation Case No. 254, 255 and
256/2004 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for the death of Nisar
Ahamad @ Seikh Samshir, Md. Meer Munna @ Reyaz Ahmed and Md.
Akhtar respectively in favour of the claimants who are their legal
representatives. Since all these appeals have been preferred against the
common judgment and award, therefore they have been heard together
and shall be disposed of by the common judgment.
2. On 11.7.2004 Nisar Ahamad @ Seikh Samshir, Md. Meer
Munna @ Reyaz Ahmed and Md Akhtar, were going to Jamshedpur from
Ranchi on a trailer No HR-38-0401, which ran into and dashed against a
standing trailer and thereafter collided with a truck bearing Registration
No. HR-38A-3751. Both the vehicles got badly damaged and all the three
occupants died on spot in the accident.
3. Bundu P.S. Case No. 044/2004 dated 11.07.2004 under Sections
279/337/338/427 and 304-A of the IPC was registered against the drivers
of both the offending vehicles. Police on investigation found the case true
and submitted charge-sheet against the drivers of both the vehicles.
4. The claim case has been brought against the owner and insurer
of both the offending vehicles. Claimants have pleaded that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Trailer No.
HR-38-0401 and the truck bearing Registration No. HR-38A-3751.
5. O.P. No.1 M/s Ajay Engicon (P) Limited and O.P. No.2 the
United India insurance Company Limited, the owner and insurer of
offending vehicle bearing No. HR-38-0401 and the owner and insurer of
Truck No. HR - 383751 have been impleaded as O.P. Nos.3 & 4 have
been impleaded in the case
6. In pursuance to the notice issued, O.P. No.1 appeared but did
not file its written statement. However, the O.P. No.2 has appeared and
contested the claim case. The specific plea is that there was a head-on
collision between both the vehicles and at the time of accident vehicle
bearing No. HR-38-0401 was not insured with O.P. No.2 and, therefore,
was not liable to make payment on behalf of the owner. Further O.P. No.4
the Oriented Insurance Company has already compromised the case with
the claimants in the Lok Adalat and consequently, O.P. No.4 has been
expunged from liability by the learned Tribunal.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following main
issues were framed:
i. Was the death of Nisar Ahamad @ Seikh Samshir, Md. Meer
Munna @ Reyaz Ahmed and Md. Akhtar caused in the motor
vehicle accident arising out of the offending Trailer No.
HR-38-0401 and Truck No. HR-38-3751?
ii. Had the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
both these vehicles?
iii. Was it a case of head on collision between the two vehicles?
iv. Was the offending Trailer No. HR -38-0401 under the insurance
cover of O.P. No.2?
8. The learned Tribunal on theses material issues recorded a find-
ing that it was a case of head on collision and the said accident had taken
place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of both the vehicles.
It further noted that since the claimants had already compromised the case
with O.P. No.4 being the insurer of Truck No. HR-38-3751 therefore the
claimants in all these three compensation cases are entitled to receive com-
pensation only 50% of the award from the owner/insurer of the Trailer No.
HR -38--0401 i.e. O.P. No.1 Ajay Egicon Ltd. On the point of insurance it
has been held that this vehicle was not validly insured with O.P. No.2 the
United India Insurance Co. at the relevant time of the accident.
9. On the factum and manner of accident the tribunal returned a
finding of fact that it was a head on collision of both these vehicles caused
equally by the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles.
10. In Comp. Case No. 254/2004 the learned Tribunal computed a
total compensation of Rs.2,29,000/- for the death of Nisar Ahmad @ Seikh-
Samshir and apportioned a liability of 50% liability on O.P. No.1 to a sum
of Rs.1,15,000/- along with interest @ of 6% from the date of the O.P1 in
the claim case.
In Comp. Case No. 255/2004 and 256/2004 the learned Tribunal
computed a total compensation of Rs.1,28,000/- for the death of Md. Meer
Munna @ Reyaz Ahmed and Md. Akhtar to pay the aforesaid amount along
with Rs.2000/- as the funeral expense and Rs.2,500/- as the loss of estate
which worked out to Rs.1,32,500/- along with interest @ of 6% from the
date of the O.P. No. 1 and O.P.No. 2 entered into appearance in the claim
case. Since it was held to be a case of contributory negligence, therefore
O.P.No.1 was directed to pay Rs.66,250/- rounded of to Rs.67,000/- to the
claimants.
11. Appeal in all these three appeals proceed on common ground.
The award of compensation has been impugned by Ajay Engicon Pvt. Ltd.
mainly on the ground that no case under the Workmen's Compensation Act
was lodged against the appellant as, admittedly, the applicants failed to
prove that they were the employee/workman of the appellant and the award
of compensation was excessive. Compensation if any should have been
awarded against the Insurance Company since the vehicle was under the
Insurance Cover of Opposite Party No.2.
12. The learned Tribunal framed Issue No.6 on the question
whether Trailer No.HR-038-0401 was under the insurance cover at the time
of accident? After considering the evidence it held that the policy paper
which was produced on behalf of the O.P. No. 1 regarding the insurance of
the Trailer was not held to be issued from the concerned branch. The owner
of the vehicle has failed to establish that the vehicle in question was under
insurance cover. Under the circumstance, I do not find any illegality in
holding the owner liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
Further, another point has been raised that the deceased were
not the employees of O.P. No. 1 and, therefore, the petition has not been
filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is a moot point whether the
deceased were the employees of O.P. No. 1 or not, because the claim has not
been preferred under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The owner cannot
escape liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants for the
death of the deceased persons in the motor vehicle accident on account of
the rash and negligent driving by its driver.
The appeals are devoid of any merit and, accordingly, M.A.
Nos. 14/2012, 15/2012 and 16/2012 are dismissed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 2nd December, 2021
NAFR / AKT
