Jharkhand High Court
Branch Manager vs Dhanpati Kisku on 23 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 314 of 2015
......
Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...... Appellant
Versus
1. Dhanpati Kisku
2. Luis Murmu
3. Maheshwar Sah ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Appellant : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the Respondents. : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall Advocate
Md. Asadul Haque, Advocate
06/Dated: 23/02/2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Swati Shalini and learned
counsel for the respondents, Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall assisted by learned counsel, Md.
Asadul Haque.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant- Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the award dated
18.03.2015, passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal, Pakur, in MACT Case No.94/2013 whereby the claimants
namely, Dhanpati Kisku and Luis Murmu have been awarded compensation to
the tune of Rs.35,39,152/- along with simple interest @ 7% per annum from the
date of institution to the date of actual indemnifying the award.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that FIR has been lodged
against unknown driver vide Dumka (M) P.S. Case No.5/12 dated 06.01.2012
under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC, but after investigation police submitted
chargsheet against the driver of the offending truck namely, Manoj Kumar Das
under Sections 279, 337, 427 and 304(A) IPC. The said Manoj Kumar Das is
accused in large number of criminal cases in connivance with such the claimants
and thus became party in different MACT Claim Cases, pending before the court
of Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal vide MACT Claim Cases
No.88/2013,17/2012 and 53/2014.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Manoj
Kumar Das, is a set up person in connivance with the claimants, as such, the
Court ought to have considered, the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in
2010 (2) SCC 607.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that so far the
quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal has wrongly used
multiplier of 18 instead of 17, in view of the judgment passed by the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 at para 42 as the
deceased died at the age of 28 years.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Apex Court in
the case of Savita vs. Bindar Singh and Ors. reported in 2014 (4) SCC 505 has
awarded compensation under conventional head to the tune of Rs.1 lacs for loss of
consortium and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses, whereas in the subsequent
judgment passed by larger Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has quantified
the same in para 59.8 to be Rs.70,000/- (loss of Estate as Rs.15,000/-, loss of
consortium as Rs.40,000/- and for funeral expenses as Rs.15,000/- i.e. total
Rs.70,000/-), but the aforesaid amount should be enhanced @ 10% at every three
years, as such, on today this amount can be said to be Rs.77,000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that though the
judgment of Sawita vs. Binder Singh (Supra) has not been considered by the larger
Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), but to assist this Court an adjournment
may be granted.
Considering the same, let the case be listed after physical court starts.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S
