The New India Assurance Company ... vs Chinta Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 846 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                             M.A. No. 491 of 2014
        The New India Assurance Company Ltd.              .... .. ...          Appellant(s)
                                      Versus
       1. Chinta Devi
       2. Dhirendra Kumar
       3. Gajendra Kumar
       4. Surendra Kumar
       5. Biru Das @ Biru Ravidas
       6. Tulia Devi
       7. Lalit Narayan Saw
       8. Binod Yadav                                               .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                           ...........

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

       For the Appellant(s)            :     Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate.
       For the Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate.
                           ..........
05/22.02.2021.        I.A. No.6783 of 2014
              Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is delay of 70 days in preferring the instant Misc. Appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No.6783 of 2014 has been filed and the reason for delay has been mentioned at Para 3 of I.A. No.6783 of 2014.

Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha has submitted that the aforesaid delay has not been categorically explained in day to day manner.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material brought on record, the delay of 70 days in preferring the instant Misc. Appeal is hereby condoned, as no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents/claimants.

The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of.

M.A. No. 491 of 2014

1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant- The New India Assurance Company Ltd. has preferred this Misc. Appeal against the judgment dated 28.06.2014 passed by learned District Judge-V-cum-M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in T.M.V. No.205 of 2008, whereby claimants namely, 1. Chinta Devi, 2. Dhirendra Kumar, 3. Gajendra Kumar, 4. Surendra Kumar, 5. Biru Das @ Biru Ravidas and 6. Tulia Devi have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,08,700/- to be paid within 30 days of the award, failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall be paid by the Insurance Company.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award on the ground that there was collision of two vehicles, but the learned Tribunal has not considered the contributory negligence of both the vehicles.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has submitted that though the claimants have not preferred appeal for enhancement of the award, but compensation has been paid on the lower side.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has further submitted that both the offending vehicles were insured before the same Insurance Company i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., as such, contributory negligence will not give any relief to the Insurance Company and it is not a head-on collision rather one vehicle was hit from the back side by another vehicle, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same.

6. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, since the quantum of compensation has not been assailed by the appellant, as such, this Court cannot look into the quantum of compensation even though it is less, in absence of any appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the award in view of the judgment passed by the 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."

7. So far the ground taken by the appellant- Insurance Company is concerned, this Court has examined the record and found that both the vehicles were insured before the same Insurance Company and that is not a case of head-on collision, as such, the ground taken by the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

9. The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court while preferring the appeal shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal by the

learned Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks so as to indemnify the award, if not indemnified till date.

10. Further in compliance of order dated 02.05.2018, amount of Rs.6,00,000/- has already been deposited by the Insurance Company before the Executing Court, out of which Rs.4 lacs has been disbursed in favour of the claimants.

11. Accordingly, Rs.2 lacs shall also be disbursed in favour of the claimants. The balance amount, if any, that may remains as per the award passed by the learned tribunal dated 28.06.2014, the Insurance Company shall indemnify the same, as the accident is of dated 03.10.2008.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/