Manjeet Chawla vs Icici Lombard Motor Insurance
2022 Latest Caselaw 1938 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  M.A. No. 564 of 2016
        1. Manjeet Chawla
        2. Piyush Chawla
        3. Ashish Chawla............                          Appellants
                                 Versus
        1. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
        2. Sri Govind Agrawal............                        Respondents
                                 ......

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen ......

        For the Appellants            : Mr. P.A.S.Pati, Advocate
        For the Insurance Company     : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
                                 ......
10/12.05.2022    This appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself as both the

parties submit that since the original lower court record is already available with the Court and the issue involved is very short, this appeal can be disposed of at this stage itself.

2. Further, from the order sheet, I find that notices were served upon Respondent No. 2, who is the owner of the vehicle. Since, Respondent No. 2 had not appeared, this Court on the last date directed to proceed exparte against him.

3. Considering the nature of dispute, which lies in a very narrow compass, I am disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

4. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants, who prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation, which was granted to them vide judgment and award dated 29th January, 2016, passed by the District Judge-III-cum-M.V.A.C.T., Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No. 79 of 2013.

5. The sole ground taken by the appellants is that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month, but without there being any positive evidence the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month. He submits that there are positive evidence to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/-per month and that being so the quantification of the income of the deceased is wholly incorrect and against the evidence led. He has not disputed the dependency, application of multiplier or any other aspects which have been decided in the judgment, by the Tribunal.

6. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf the Insurance Company submits that the claimants failed to produce any chit of paper which suggests that the income of the deceased was Rs.5000/- per month. That being so the Tribunal was well within his jurisdiction to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month.

7. Considering the narrow scope of this appeal, I have gone through

the impugned judgment and the lower court records. From the impugned judgment, I find that it is an admitted fact that the deceased was working as a Driver of a Pick-up van. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. PW-1 is the claimants herself, who, while deposing in Court in Para-4, has categorically stated that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month. Said witness was cross-examined by the Insurance Company, but on the point of income not even a single question was put to her. Further, in the claim application I find that the claimants have mentioned that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month.

8. The employer of the deceased had filed his written statement/show cause. In Para-8 of his written statement/ show cause, the statement made in column 7 of the claim application was dealt with. In Para- 8 of the written statement/show cause, it has been mentioned that the statements made in column 7 and in other particular column, i.e. column nos. 5, 6, 9 & 11 of the claim application, are substantially correct.

9. This fact clearly suggests that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month. There is no contradictory evidence to the same. When this fact that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/-per month. was established by oral evidence, this Court failed to understand as to why the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/-per month, which, in fact, is a notional income. The fact that the deceased was a driver and working in a pick-up van has also not been challenged by the respondent-insurance company.

10. Thus, I hold that the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month by the Tribunal is erroneous and beyond evidence. Thus, I set aside the finding of the Tribunal and I hold that the monthly income of the deceased to be taken at Rs.5000/- per month for calculating the compensation. Now, on recalculation the amount will come to Rs. 7,70,000/-. The insurance company has already paid Rs.4,16,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. Thus, the balance amount comes to Rs.3,54,000/-. This balance amount will carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the judgment passed by the Tribunal till the same is paid. The balance amount alongwith interest, should be paid to the claimants within eight weeks from today.

11. This appeal stands allowed.

12. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the right of recovery, which has been granted by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company.

13. Before parting, it be noted that a report was called for from the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur vide order dated 04.05.2022. The report has been received. The report was called as the complete documents, i.e. the cross-examination of PW-1, was not sent to this Court on earlier occasion. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur has identified the Office Clerk, who has committed the mistake and has forwarded a copy of his explanation alongwith the forwarding letter of the I/C District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, to this Court. The Principal District & Sessions Judge has also sent his comments.

14. After going through the explanation, submitted by the Office Clerk namely, Sri Ravindra Kumar, I find that he has tried to explain that many of the documents were in legal size paper and he is not conversant with the computer and has no professional knowledge in Computers. He has to go to other office to get the legal size documents scanned. He pleaded that he even though has been relieved from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, he had to give time in that office also for clearing the pending work.

15. His explanation, first, gives an impression that by doing this work, he is doing some favour to the Court. Not only this, when I go through the records, I find that he has tried to mislead this Court. He has taken a plea that some documents were in legal size paper and the scanner available in his office cannot scan legal size documents. It is surprising that the documents, which he did not send, i.e. the cross- examination of PW-1, is in A-4 size paper and not a legal size paper. The back portion of the examination-in-chief clearly suggests that the cross- examination was recorded in A-4 size paper and not in legal size paper. Thus, the documents speak itself.

16. Thus, prima-facie, this Court feels that a misleading explanation has been sent to this Court by the concerned Office Clerk. Just to complete a formality this explanation has been sent. More surprising is that both the Judicial Officer, i.e. the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur and I/C District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamshedpur, merely forwarded his explanation without verifying the correct fact. This is also unfortunate. They should have verified the fact and the explanation, which they failed to do so.

17. To proceed any further, I direct the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur to initiate a Departmental Proceeding against the erring Office Clerk namely, Ravindra Kumar, for prima-facie giving a misleading explanation to this Court.

18. Further, this Court direct both the Judicial Officers, i.e. the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur and I/C District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamshedpur to be more careful in future before forwarding any show-cause or explanations to this Court. They must satisfy themselves as to whether those explanations are genuine or not and must ensure that the same are not misleading.

(Ananda Sen, J) Mukund/-cp.2