Jharkhand High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Chandrama Vishwakarma & Ors on 16 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 68 of 2018
......
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...... Appellant
Versus
Chandrama Vishwakarma & Ors. ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
......
For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent no.1 : Mr. Amit Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent no.6 : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
-----
05/Dated: 16/03/2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manish Kumar has assailed the
impugned award with regard to right of recovery given in favour of the
Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the offending
vehicle as the learned Tribunal has held that deceased was travelling on the
roof of the bus and the offending vehicle was plying on public road without
having route permit and the proper driving license.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that so far quantum
of compensation is concerned, the same is excess as the deceased was
working as a Raj Mistry in Munigarha, Orissa and learned Tribunal has
considered his income as Rs.6,000/- for an accident which took place on
16.10.2009.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian, reported in
2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, wherein in absence of any documentary evidence, the
Apex Court has considered the income of the deceased, who was a carpenter
and died in the year, 2002 to be Rs.5,000/-.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/claimant, Mr. Amit Kr.
Tiwari has submitted that the case of Chameli Devi (Supra) is of the year,
2002 whereas the case of present claimant is of the year, 2009, as such,
income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- is just and fair.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.6, Mr. Sidhartha Roy has
submitted that he has filed all the documents, which have been verified by
the appellant, but the driving licence and the route permit was with the
vehicle, as such, finding of the learned Tribunal on those two issues are not
proper. So far issue with regard to travelling of the deceased on the roof of
the bus is concerned, the case of the owner, Manoj Singh is covered by a
judgment passed by full Bench of this Court in the case of Giriraj Prasad
Agrawal and Ors. vs. Parwati Devi, reported in 2005 (2) JCR 523 and the
same has been assailed before the Apex Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in that case the
appeal was disposed of by the Apex Court giving right to recover in favour
of the Insurance Company from the respondent no.1, insured, as such, the
judgment of the Supreme Court is not coming in any help to the owner of
the vehicle.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
interest has been awarded @ 9% from the date of admission of the claim
application under Section 166 of the MV Act i.e. 15.07.2010 till its realization,
which ought to have been 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
application in view of Section 171 of the MV Act coupled with the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P.
Transport Corporation, reported in (2008) 4 JCR 79 SC.
Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted in this regard that no
specific reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal for awarding
interest from the date of admission, which ought to have been from the date
of filing, as such, the interest will not bring much change in the quantum of
compensation.
Since the learned counsel for the respondent no.6/owner, Mr.
Sidhartha Roy has prayed for time, let the appeal be listed on 23.03.2021.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to any of
the parties.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
