Branch Manager vs Piyush Kedia @ Piyush Ramesh Kedia
2021 Latest Caselaw 1480 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  [Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction]
                         M.A. No. 35 of 2018
        Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard 2, D. Ashirwad Mansion, Opposite Tirath
        Mansion, Main Road, Ranchi                        .... .. ...        Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
        1.Piyush Kedia @ Piyush Ramesh Kedia
        2.Anand Dhanuka
        3.Rajesh Prasad Allied Road Traders
        4.Manish Dhanuka                                        .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                                    With
                         M.A. No. 149 of 2018
        Piyush Kedia @ Piyush Ramesh Kedia                      .... .. ...     Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
        Anand Dhanuka & Ors.                                    .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                         ...........

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

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Bibash Sinha, Advocate [M.A. No. 35 of 2018] Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate [M.A. No. 149 of 2018] For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate [M.A. No. 35 of 2018] Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate [M.A. No. 149 of 2018] ..........

10 / 23.03.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant- ICICI Lombard 2/ Insurance Company [in M.A. No. 35 of 2018] has submitted that no fault liability to the tune of Rs.25,000/- has not been deducted on the final awarded amount.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that apart from that, the appellant- ICICI Lombard [Insurance Company] has assailed the impugned award with regard to the travelling expense of Rs.3,06,947/-, as the injured with one attendant may be permissible, but the entire family or more than one attendant is not permissible under the law.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that other amount excluding travelling allowance, along with interest @9% per annum has already been indemnified by the Insurance Company to the injured, as such, this Misc. Appeal may be heard on these two limited issues.

Ms. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that copy of the brief has got misplaced, as such, she will make a request to counsel for the appellant for the same.

Mrs. Nirupama, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant/injured in [in M.A. No. 149 of 2018] has submitted that the M.A. No.149 of 2018 has been preferred by the injured for enhancement of the Award, as the Future Prospect of the injured, future earning capacity and loss of compensation for diet, have not been considered by the learned Tribunal while adjudicating the award.

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant/injured has further submitted that since the injured was an unmarried person, as such, he lost his chance for matrimonial relation and the same has not been taken note of by the learned Tribunal.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company has submitted that loss of compensation for diet chart is not applicable in the present case, as there is finding that there is no loss of earning of the injured. So far compensation with regard to prospect of matrimonial relation of the injured is concerned, there is no pleading nor any evidence has been adduced before the learned Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the appellant in support of her submission has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 at Para-6.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that loss caused to the claimant/injured during the period of treatment has not been considered by the learned Tribunal.

It appears that dispute is between the Insurance Company and the claimant/injured. Admittedly, the vehicle is insured.

Both the aforesaid Misc. Appeals have been preferred with a delay of 58 days (in M.A. No.35 of 2018) and 111 days (in M.A. No.149 of 2018).

Considering the same and considering it to be a benevolent legislation, the delay of 58 days (in M.A. No.35 of 2018) and 111 days (in M.A. No.149 of 2018) are hereby condoned.

Both the I.As. i.e. I.A. No.1009 of 2018 and 4821 of 2018 stand allowed.

Let both the cases be listed in the Monthly Cause List of April, 2021 when the other appeals having similar issue are to be listed.

In the meantime, Let L.C.R. be called for.

Let name of Mr. Rajiv Anand, learned counsel be deleted in the cause list from the column of respondent side, as he has not appeared on behalf of any of the parties.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/