Jharkhand High Court
Sunita Devi & Others vs Asheswar Roy & Others on 16 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 59 of 2018
........
Sunita Devi & Others .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Asheswar Roy & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate.
For the Respondents :
........
05/16.03.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sudhansu
Kumar Deo.
Claimants namely, (1) Sunita Devi, wife of Late Varun Prasad
Ray, (2) Kajal Kumari, daughter of Late Varun Prasad Ray, (3) Tannu
Kumari, daughter of Late Varun Prasad Ray and (4) Naina Kumari,
daughter of Late Varun Prasad Ray are the appellants before this
Court. Appellant nos. 2 to 4 are minors and they are represented by
their mother and natural guardian appellant no. 1 Sunita Devi. So far
the father and mother of the deceased Varun Prasad Ray namely,
Kamdeo Ray, son of Kalekter Ray and Fulwati Devi, wife of
Kamdeo Ray are concerned, they have been impleaded as Opposite
Party Nos. 2 & 3, but the learned Tribunal in terms of judgment
dated 31.08.2017 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Deoghar in M.V. Claim No.
14/2015 has dismissed the claim application on the ground that the
claim application is cryptic and ambiguous.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned
Tribunal has framed Issue No. V i.e. Whether at the relevant time of
accident, the offending vehicle Truck No. NL 02L 1801 was
insured by any Insurance Company or not?
The learned Tribunal has categorically held at para-10 of the
impugned judgment that "While deciding this issue, I would like to
mention here that the learned counsel for claimant himself has
admitted that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of
accident, so he has not added the insurance company a party in this
claim case. So obviously this issue is decided against the claimant".
As such, this Court is surprised to read such judgment, that if a
vehicle is not insured, then how the vehicle was released by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar which has been seized in
connection with Deoghar (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 66/2015.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Deoghar is directed to submit a report on the
following:
(i) What is the stage of the trial of Deoghar (Kunda) P.S. Case
No. 66/2015, whether the accused are absconding or they are
contesting the case; whether the case is pending or disposed of?
(ii) How the vehicle was released?
(iii) Whether the insurance paper was perused by the court below
or not before releasing the seized vehicle?
(iv) Whether the Insurance Paper was valid or not at the time of
accident?
(v) Whether on the date of alleged occurrence, the vehicle was
insured or not and if not, how the Insurance Company has insured
the vehicle before its release, when it was standing in police station?
The report must be submitted before this Court by Friday i.e.
19.03.2021.
Let the copy of order be communicated through FAX to the
court concerned at once.
After receipt of the report, this Court will examine whether the
judgment of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited
& Others reported in 2010 (2) SCC 607 is being followed by learned
Tribunal or not? Whether the judicial officer holding the Tribunal as
Presiding Officer of Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal requires any
special training before the Judicial Academy or not? Whether the
District Legal Services Authority under the Jharkhand High Court
Legal Services Authority is taking steps to follow guidelines issued
by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash (Supra) by appointing
their penal lawyers for filing an application under Section 140 as
well as application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and
even after passing of the award? Whether execution case are being
filed and monitored by District Legal Services Authority or not?
All these issues shall be considered after receipt of the report
from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Deoghar.
It appears that I.A. No. 2300/2018 has been filed for
condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the instant miscellaneous
appeal.
Let notice be issued to respondent no. 1 namely, Asheswar
Roy, son of Ramchandra Roy, resident at 35, Mani Lal Chaterjee
Lane, Ward No. 40, Howrah Municipal Corporation, P.O., P.S. &
District - Howrah - 711101 (West Bengal) being the owner of Truck
bearing registration no. NL 02L 1801 in limitation matter as well as
in main memo of appeal under both process i.e. under registered
cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, for which
requisites etc. must be filed by tomorrow i.e. by 17.03.2021.
Let the entire record of M.V. Claim No. 14/2015 be called for,
which must be received before this Court by 22.03.2021.
Let the appeal be listed on 23.03.2021 as a first case.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
