Jharkhand High Court
Subodhini Soren & Others vs Bikash Banarji & Another on 10 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 165 of 2011
........
Subodhini Soren & Others .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Bikash Banarji & Another .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Mr. G. C. Jha, Advocate.
........
18/10.03.2021.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall has
submitted that as per the service report, respondent no.1, Bikash Banarji
( M.J. Movers) has left from Amarapara, after the coal mines was closed.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is delay
of 372 days in preferring the appeal, for condonation of the same, I.A.
No.3792/2011 has been preferred. The notice has been issued to the
Insurance Company namely, National Insurance Company Limited in
terms of order dated 01.04.2014, as such, the appeal may be heard, in
absence of the owner because the Insurance Company has been saddled
with the liability by the learned Tribunal. The Insurance Company has not
assailed the impugned award to shift the liability upon owner of the
offending vehicle, as such, this Court may proceed in the matter.
Mr. G. C. Jha appearing for the National Insurance Company
Limited has opposed the prayer and has submitted that it is an unfortunate
case where the Insurance Company has indemnified the compensation to
the claimants to the tune of Rs.14,52,300/- by way of cheque on
06.05.2011 and thereafter, the delay of 372 days has been explained,
which is false as stated in paras-4, 6 and 7, which does not generate
confidence in the conduct of the appellants to submit before this Court
with clean hands, as such, the appeal may proceed, but while considering
the limitation petition, this Court may consider the fact stated in the
limitation petition.
However, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has not filed
any counter affidavit.
Considering rival submissions of the parties, it appears that a plea
of paucity of money as well as proper guidance for preferring appeal for
enhancement of the compensation amount has not been given to the
claimants though the reason regarding paucity of money is not seems to be
appropriate, but considering it to be a benevolent legislation, this Court
will examine the just and fair compensation in the light of judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Others Vs.
Divisional Manager & Another 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."
It would be proper for this Court to condone the delay, but with
condition that from the date of indemnifying the award dated 06.05.2011
till the date of issuance of notice upon the National Insurance Company
Limited dated 01.04.2014, the claimants will not be entitled for any
interest even if the compensation amount is enhanced.
Considering the same, I.A. No.3792/2011 is disposed of.
The appearance of respondent no.1, is not necessary in the present
appeal, as the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the
impugned award to shift the liability upon the owner of the offending
vehicle.
Put up this case on 16.03.2021 under the heading "For Admission".
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
