Jharkhand High Court
New India Assurance Company ... vs Rama Shankar Yadav @ Topa Yadav on 22 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Miscellaneous Appeal No.115 of 2016
----
New India Assurance Company Limited Branch at Bhagalpur, Chandralok
Complex, Ghantaghar Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Bhagalpur, District-Bhagalpur,
within Patna ............ Opposite Party No.3/ Appellant
-- Versus --
1.Rama Shankar Yadav @ Topa Yadav, son of Durga Prasad Yadav,
resident of Talbanna, Sobhan Asthan Mandir, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj (T)
District-Sahibganj ..... Claimant
2.Ram Niwas Yadav, s/o late Ramdev Yadav, resident of Sobhanpur Bhatta,
P.S. Sahibganj (M), P.O. and Post-Sahibganj ..... O.P.No.1
3.Bablu Yadav, son of late Ramdev Yadav, resident of Sobhanpur Bhatta,
P.S. Sahibganj (M), P.O. and District-Sahibganj ..... O.P.No.2
...... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant/Ins.Co. :- Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Resp./Claimant :- Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
----
12/22.02.2023 Heard Mr. Alok Lal the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/ New India Assurance Company Limited and Mr. Birendra Kumar, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ claimant.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/Award dated
14.06.2013 passed by learned District Judge-I cum-Claims Tribunal Judge,
Sahibganj in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Claim Case No.05 of 2009.
On 23.09.2009 at 2:15 p.m., Mukesh Kumar Yadav was standing on the
Nala in front of his house and the driver of the tractor bearing No.BR 10H
9257 being driven by Ram Niwas Yadav by rash and negligently, crushed the
deceased namely, Mukesh Kumar Yadav and fled away. The injured was
brought to Sahibganj Hospital for treatment. The deceased was the son of the
informant and during his treatment the son of the informant succumbed to
death due to the said injury. Sahibganj (Town) P.S. Case No.175 of 2009
dated 23.9.2009 under sections 279/304 (A) of the I.P.C has been registered
against the owner of the vehicle as well as the driver. The learned Tribunal
considering the evidences oral as well as documentary evidence has directed
to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the
case i.e. 18.11.2009 till the date of full and final payment within 60 days from
the date of the order.
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company on the
ground that the policy was fake and the driving license was also not valid.
In course of argument, Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the
respondent/ claimant draws the attention of the Court to the paragraph no.13
of the said Award and submits that it was the consented Award and in that
view of the matter, the appeal is not maintainable.
In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the judgment and finds that in paragraph no.13
of the Award it transpires that the learned Tribunal was inclined to grant a
sum of Rs.3,50,000/- however, that was objected by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant/ Insurance Company and on their
objection, the compensation amount was fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- on the offer
of the Insurance company which was accepted by the claimants and in that
view of the matter, the Award was passed on the consent of both the parties.
It is well settled that against a consented order or judgment, the appeal shall
not be maintainable.
Accordingly, Misc. Appeal No.115 of 2016 is dismissed.
The interest part as directed in paragraph no.15 of the said Award shall
be taken care of by the learned Tribunal while satisfying the Award.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant/ Insurance Company
shall be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal which shall be utilized for
satisfying the Award.
The Award shall be satisfied within six weeks from the date of receipt/
production of a copy of this order in favour of the claimants.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
