Chandrawati Devi & Others vs Anand Prakash Honda & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 162 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                  M.A. No. 153 of 2014
                         ........

Chandrawati Devi & Others .... ..... Appellants Versus Anand Prakash Honda & Others .... ..... Respondents

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

For the Appellants              : Mr. Rohit, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2        : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 4        : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 5        : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate
                                 ........
10/12.01.2021.

The appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by learned Principal District Judge

-cum- P.O., M.V.A.C.T., Giridih in M.V. Claim Case No.01/2008.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that on 12.09.2007 when Indra Lal Sharma was coming on scooter, the offending truck bearing registration no. JH-02D-1263 insured before New India Assurance Company Limited dashed him and the claim application was initially filed by these three claimants / appellants, the claim application was decided on 20.10.2012 by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.13,32,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 04.01.2008 till the date of realization. But after the award was passed Dropadi Devi filed an application to implead her as well as Soni Devi @ Soni Sharma as necessary party to the claim application and payment may be made.

The learned Tribunal in terms of order dated 29.05.2013 passed in Claim Case No. 01/2008 reviewed the judgment and held that they are also necessary party as Dropadi Devi has been considered to be step mother of the deceased and Soni Sharma as daughter of the deceased and award amount was ordered to be divided into 5 equal shares for the claimants including the intervenor. Thereafter, the appellants, Chandrawati Devi, Narendra Sharma and Seema Kumari preferred Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court vide M.A. No.142/2013, which was decided on 05.09.2013 by

setting aside the impugned order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal and matter was remanded to the learned Tribunal to decide the issue that whether the respondent, Dropadi Devi and Soni Sharma, in whose favour judgment has been reviewed, are legal representative / necessary parties in the said Claim Case No.01/2008? and if the respondent no.4 Dropadi Devi and Respondent no.5 Soni Sharma are considered to be legal representative of Indra Lal Sharma in said claim case then what share of the awarded amount is to be allotted to them?

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that after the recording the evidence afresh on these two issues, the learned Tribunal held that Dropadi Devi, being the mother or step mother of the deceased Indra Lal Sharma, is class -1 heir and so far Soni Devi @ Soni Sharma is concerned, she being the daughter has also been considered to be class -1 heir of the deceased Indra Lal Sharma.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4, Mr. Yogesh Modi has submitted that learned Tribunal after remand has not decided the issue that whether Dropadi Devi is natural mother or step mother? and wrongly considered to be her as step mother also, though in view of Hindu Succession Act, Scheduled -I step mother cannot be a class- 1 heir, but this fact has not been decided by learned Tribunal and the germane lies on the issue that what was relationship between Dropadi Devi and Indra Lal Sharma deceased, which can be decided on the basis of service record of Indra Lal Sharma, who got compassionate appointment on death of his father, Mahabir Sharma in the C.C.L., as such, by calling for the document and on perusing the said document this appeal may be decided.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this case is adjourned for two weeks directing the counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondents, Mr. Yogesh Modi and Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai to bring the said document on record, however, to minimize this litigation and it would be proper that C.C.L. be added as a party.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, let C.C.L. through its Managing Director be added as respondent nos. 6 in this appeal.

Let two copies of memo of appeal along with the impugned award be served upon learned counsel Mr. A. K. Das, who normally appears on behalf of the C.C.L.

Put up this case after two weeks.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil-Jay/-