Jharkhand High Court
Branch Manager vs Fudi Bewa on 10 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 215 of 2010
Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , Bhagalpur Branch,
Bihar, through its Divisional Office at Ranchi.
..... ..... Appellant
Versus
1. Fudi Bewa W/o. Late Shaif ali @ Anarul Sk.
2. Tumpa Khatoon
3. Runa Khatoon
4. Samiul Sk.
Sl. Nos. 2 to 4 daughters and son of Late Shaif ali @ Anarul Sk.
All residents of village- Anupnagar, P.O. & P.S.- Samerganj, Dist-
Murshidabad (West Bengal), presently residing at village-
Purvinarayanpur (Khairpara Pulwariya) P.O. & P.S.- Rajmahal, Dist-
Sahibganj (Jharkhand).
5. Nand Lal Singh son of Late Shridayal Singh, resident of village- Sahabad,
P.O. & P.S.- Mirja chowki, Sahibganj, Dist- Sahibganj (Jharkhand).
.... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. D.C Ghose, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. T.K. Misra, Advocate
CAV ON 03. 02 . 2022 PRONOUNCED ON 10 . 02. 2022
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 1st
February, 2010 passed by learned District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident
Claim Tribunal, Pakur in M.A.C.T. No. 4 of 2007.
2. Claimant no.1 is the widow and claimant no.3 to 4 are children
of deceased Shaif Ali who died in a motor vehicle accident on 19.06.2006
when the truck bearing registration No. WGR 2435 while on way to Ranchi
from Rajmahal overturned near Littipara Police Station on main road due to
rash and negligent driving of the truck. The deceased after loading the mango
on the truck was also going along with the goods when it met with the
accident. Littipara P.S. Case No. 30/06 was registered under Sections 279,
337 and 304A of IPC was registered against the driver of the truck. After
investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Driver Kamlesh Yadav
under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. It is the case of the claimants that
deceased worked as a mason and was also engaged in the business of
mangoes.
3. The award of compensation of Rs.5,67,600/- has been assailed
mainly on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid
driving licence and secondly the deceased was travelling on the truck as a
gratuitous passenger at the relevant time. It has been disputed that the
deceased was travelling in the goods carrying vehicle as the owner or
representative of the goods under Section 147 1 (b)(i) of the MV Act 1988. It
is contended that the driver was having valid driving licence for "Light Motor
Vehicle none Transport" and not for a goods carrying vehicle which amount
to breach of condition of the vehicle being plied under a valid driving licence.
4. The question raised in this appeal whether the driver having a driving
licence for " Light Motor Vehicle none Transport" could drive goods carrying
transport vehicle has been settled in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 that
" The definition of "light motor vehicle" has to be given full effect to and it
has to be read with Section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that
"light motor vehicle" is also a "transport vehicle", the gross vehicle weight
or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg as specified in the
provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e.
light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other
categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in
Section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of Section 3 of the Act requires that
a person in order to drive a "transport vehicle" must have authorisation.
Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean
specific authorisation to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross
vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, the unladen weight of
which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg."
In view of the above ratio, the plea of the Insurance Company of
invalidity of driving licence does not hold on and is accordingly rejected.
4. The second plea of the deceased being a gratuitous passenger
also is not supported by the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that the
deceased was on the truck loaded with mango. It is the consistent case of the
claimant that the deceased was in partnership business with Jahangir Seikh
and Guljar Seikh, who was travelling in the truck after loading it on its way to
Ranchi. All the witnesses have consistently supported claimant's case that
deceased was accompanying the consignment of mangos to Ranchi as partner
in the trade of mangos. The Insurance Company has not led any evidence to
support their case and rebut the case of the claimant. I do not find any material
on record to draw a contrary inference. The learned Tribunal did not commit
any error in the finding of fact recorded on this count that the deceased was
not a gratuitous passenger.
5. On bare perusal of the award of compensation I find that
compensation under the head of future prospect has not been allowed and only
Rs.7,000/- has been awarded under the head of conventional head. The Court
in appeal can enhance the compensation amount even if the claimant has not
preferred appeal for the enhancement of the compensation amount.
6. Claimants are entitled to a further 40% enhancement of the claim
amount under the heading of future prospect considering the age of the
deceased to be 35 years in the light of the ratio decided in National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus the
claimant shall also be entitled to Rs.5,60,000 x 40% = Rs.2,24,000 under the
heading of future prospect and Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads of
funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. The Insurance
Company shall be liable to pay total compensation of Rs.5,60,000 +
Rs.2,24,000 + Rs.77,000 = Rs.8,61,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of application.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with modification of award.
The appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount. Consequently,
I.A. No. 4925 of 2018 stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 10th February, 2022
NAFR / AKT
