Jharkhand High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Satyam Kumar Singh on 28 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 324 of 2020
With
I.A. No. 196 of 2021
------
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Satyam Kumar Singh
2. Md. Rajjuddin ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
03/28.09.2021: Heard the counsel for the appellant.
The appellant Insurance company has challenged the award dated
22.01.2020 passed by District Judge V cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,
Dhanbad, in Motor Accident Claim Case no. 263 of 2016.
The only ground taken by the appellant is that the income of the injured has
been taken as Rs. 8,000/- per month, which is much on the higher side. It is
submitted that private tutor cannot earn Rs. 8,000/- in the year 2013 when the
accident had taken place. The counsel for the appellant admits that right to
recovery has been granted by the impugned judgment.
The Motor Accident Claim Case No. 263 of 2016 arises out of an accident
which had occurred on 26.06.2013, when the claimants was travelling in a
motorcycle and was dashed by the truck bearing registration no. JH 09C 8575.
The injured claimant sustained multiple injuries in the body and especially on the
right leg. A claim application was filed wherein it was claimed that the injured was
earning Rs. 8,000/- per month from private tuition and was also earning Rs.
20,000/- per month by doing transport business. The Tribunal considered the
evidence laid by the parties and accepted that the earning of the injured is Rs.
8,000/- per month from tuition but did not consider the income from other sources,
in absence of cogent evidence. The Tribunal, thereafter asses the disability which
according to the Tribunal was 50 % and thus awarded total compensation to the
tune of Rs.17,79,571/-.
Further the Tribunal gave the Insurance company, the right to recover the
said amount from the owner of the vehicle. Since the only ground taken by the
Insurance Company is that the income could not have been Rs. 8,000/- per month,
this Court has to decide as to whether there are any cogent evidence laid by the
Insurance Company to contradict the claim of the claimant wherein the claimant
has claimed that his monthly income was Rs. 8000/- by providing private tuition.
While going through the award, I find that the Reliance General Insurance
Limited which was defendant no. 2 did not adduce any oral or documentary
evidence. There is nothing on record to suggest the fact, as pleaded by the
claimant that he was a private tutor, has been strongly controverted. If the
Insurance Company had any intention to controvert the same, they should have
produced the evidence to contradict the statement of the claimant. Same should
have been the controverted by them, if they disbelieve the statement of the
claimant that he was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. Since no evidence has been
laid by the Insurance Company, it is clear that they have failed to discharge their
onus.
Thus the Tribunal had correctly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.
8000 per month in absence of any contradictory evidence. I find no illegality in the
aforesaid assessment. Since no other point has been raised, I find no ground to
interfere in the above award.
This appeal, thus, stands dismissed.
I.A. No. 196 of 2021
In view of the final disposal of the miscellaneous appeal, I.A. No. 196 of
2021 is also dismissed.
Statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court be
refunded to the Insurance company.
Rajnish/c.p. 2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
