Jharkhand High Court
The Secretary vs Birendra Prasad Sinha @ Birendra ... on 27 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 724 of 2018
1. The Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special
Division, Koderma............ Appellants
Versus
1. Birendra Prasad Sinha @ Birendra Prasad Sinha
2. Mukesh Kumar
3. Deepak Kumar............ Respondents
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Through:-Video Conferencing
......
For the Appellants : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents : ---
......
I.A. No. 10653 of 2018
3/27.09.2021 This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 156 days, occurred in filing this
appeal. The grounds to condone the delay have been mentioned in Para- 4
to 11 of this application.
After hearing the appellants and on going through the records, I
find that the reasons have sufficiently been explained by the appellants for
condoning the delay of 156 days, occurred in filing this appeal.
Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed. The delay of 156
days, occurred in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
I.A. No. 10653 of 2018 stands disposed of.
M.A. No. 724 of 2018
Heard the counsel for the appellants.
The appellants have challenged the Award dated 28.03.2018,
passed by the Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T.
Koderma in Motor Accidents Claim Case No. 10 of 2014, on the sole
ground that the vehicle, in question, was being driven by an unauthorized
person, i.e. the son of the driver.
Counsel for the appellants submits that since the vehicle was
being driven by an unauthorized person, the appellants are not liable to
pay any amount of compensation to the deceased.
I find no merit in the aforesaid submission. Admitteldy, the
vehicle bearing registration no. JH12B- 8438, belongs to the State. The
State being the owner and the vehicle being under the custody of the
Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Koderma, it was
the duty of the State to see that the vehicle was being driven by a person
authorized to do so. If the driver of the vehicle, who was authorized to
drive the vehicle, had handed over the vehicle to his son to drive the same,
the State can proceed against the driver departmentally, who is the
employee of the State. This is not a ground to deny compensation under
the Motor Vehicle Act, by the owner of the vehicle, who is the State herein,
to the deceased.
In cases where a vehicle is insured with the insurance company
meets with accident and there is violation of condition of policy or the
driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle or has no license to drive,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these types of cases, has directed the
insurance company to satisfy the award and recover the same from the
owner. In this context, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed
in the case of "Pappu and Others- versus- Vinod Kumar Lamba & Another,
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208", needs to be referred in this case.
In this case, since the vehicle belongs to the State and the same is
not insured, it is the State, who has to pay the entire awarded
compensation. Thus, the ground taken in this case, is not a fit ground to
defeat the claim of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act. The State, thus has to satisfy the Award and to pay the entire amount
to the claimants. If the State wants to proceed against its employee
departmentally, it is for the State to do so.
Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J)
Mukund/-cp.2
