Jharkhand High Court
Defendant No. 2/ vs Ranjeet Lohra Son Of Late Gunwa ... on 10 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 124 of 2015
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch-II, Ranchi, Atmaram Bhawan, 2nd
Floor, Radheshyam Lane, Main Road, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, Dsitrict-Ranchi
........ Defendant NO. 2/Appellant
Versus
1. Ranjeet Lohra son of late Gunwa Lohra
2. Bindu Devi, wife of Ranjeet Lohra
Both residents of village Lota, P.O. Silli, District-Ranchi
.......(Claimant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively).
3. Ram Kumar Mahto, son of late Vijay Nandan Mahto, resident of village Bammi,
Goradih, P.O. and P.S. Silli, District-Ranchi........... O.P. No. 1/Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 2: Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate
15/Dated: 10/02/2023
Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Rakhi Rani,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Anupam Anand, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 3.
2. Aggrieved with judgment dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Presiding
Officer Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 234
of 2010, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Compensation Case was filed stating therein that the accident took
place on 30.06.2010 at about 7 P.M. by a tractor bearing Registration No. JH-01B-
3850 driven by Prakash Chandra Kumhar and owned by Ram Kumar Mahto and
insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It is claimed that Chito Lohra was engaged
as a labour for the purpose of loading and unloading articles in the tractor and on
30.06.2010 the driver of the said tractor was driving rashly and negligently leading to
the accident wherein the deceased fell down and came beneath the tractor. The
deceased was severely injured and died instantly. The claimant has claimed Rs. 4 lac
and for funeral expenses, loss of estate and interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
4. Learned tribunal looking into the documents as well as oral evidences
made on behalf of parties the learned tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs. 5,61,000/- in the joint name of the applicant no. 1 namely Ranjeet Lohara and
applicant no. 2 namely, Bindu Devi along with 6% per annum interest from the date of
filing i.e 20.11.2010 till the date of realization, subject to deduction of any payment
made under section 140 of the M.V. Act within 30 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order. On failure to make payment within the said stipulated time the
interest shall be chargeable @ 9% per annum from the date of expiry of the said
period of one month.
5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the F.I.R
it has been disclosed that Deval Lohra was driving the tractor wherein the chargesheet
the name of Prakash Chandra Kumhar has been disclosed. He submits that Prakash
Chandra Kumhar has been acquitted by the trial court considering that no evidence
was there. He further submits that in that view of the matter the camouflage has been
made so far as driver is concerned. He further submits that terms and conditions of
the policy has been violated as tractor in question was being driven alongwith trailer
and there was no permit. He further submits that quantum is not in accordance with
law as 50% has been provided in future prospect which is against the mandate of
law. On these grounds he submits that the appeal may be allowed.
6. On the other hand, Mrs. Rakhi Rani, learned counsel for the claimants
submits that there are so many heads in which the compensation has not been
provided to the claimants. She further submits that in the head of estate consortium
amount has not been awarded. She further submits that income of the deceased was
assessed as 4500/-per month however at Rs. 3,000/- calculation has been made and
on these grounds she submits that there is no illegality so far as quantum is
concerned.
7. Learned counsel for the owner of the tractor submits that the driver was
having valid licence and that aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the learned
tribunal at paragraph 19 of the judgement. The policy of the tractor was package
policy. He further submits that there is no illegality in the award.
8. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the
Court has gone through the judgement as well as L.C.R and finds that admittedly the
accident has occurred. The death has occurred. On the basis of information only
F.I.R. has been registered and in that view of the matter the name of the Deval Lohra
as a driver was recorded however after investigation police submitted chargesheet in
which the name of driver was disclosed as Prakash Chandra Kumhar. Since after
thorough investigation chargesheet has been submitted stating therein that Prakash
Chandra Kumhar was driving the tractor the court finds that there is no force in the
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and that has been answered by the
learned tribunal as Issue No. 3 in para 17 of the judgement. The policy is on record.
L.C.R. has been received pursuant to order of this court. On perusal of Exhibit-X2 it
transpires that limitation as to use:- The policy does not cover (i) Use for hire or
reward or for racing pace taking reliability trial or speed testing. (ii). Use for the
carriage of passengers for hire or reward. (iii) use whilst drawing a greater number of
trailers in all than is persisted by law.
9. Thus, it appears that policy was package policy. Learned tribunal has
considered about the valid licence as well as policy in paragraph 19 of the judgment
and held that insurance company has appointed surveyor for making investigation
and submitting report to the insurance company. The investigation is made with
regards of this facts. i.e. whether the vehicle in question was properly insured or not
as to whether there was any breach of the terms and conditions or as to whether
the driver of the concerned vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence or
not. The surveyor report/investigation report is not brought on record by the insurance
company. The court concluded that withholding of the best evidence by the O. P. No.
2 is adversely affecting the insurance company. It is an admitted fact that the owner
after appearance has not contested the case and if the owner was not there in the
case, onus lies upon the company to prove the case in view of section 101 of the
Indian Evidence Act. The weakness of the other side will not help a person making
any claim and onus lies upon them which is well settled provision of law. So far
quantum is concerned the court finds that although claimants are entitled for
consortium, loss of estate, however under these heads no compensation has been
awarded. Further the income of the deceased was assessed to the tune of Rs. 4500/-
whereas the learned tribunal has taken 3,000/- per month in that view of the matter,
the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not accepted by the Court.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
10. It is pointed out that pursuant to order dated 12.04.2022 a sum of Rs.
8,00,000/- and odd has been paid by the insurance company to the claimants. If in
terms of award, the entire amount has not been satisfied it is open to the claimants
to move before the learned tribunal and demonstrate their case.
11. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to
the learned tribunal to satisfy the award within six weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
12. I.A. No. 1134 of 2022 filed by the respondent no. 3-owner of the tractor is
belated one and the said I.A. is not fit to be allowed and accordingly, I.A. No. 1134 of
2022 is dismissed.
13. Let L.C.R. be remitted back to the concerned court forthwith.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
