Hari Narayan Singha @ Sinha vs Daulat Sheikh
2023 Latest Caselaw 235 Jhar

                                                        1        Miscellaneous Appeal No. 266 of 2015


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Miscellaneous Appeal No. 266 of 2015
                 Hari Narayan Singha @ Sinha, S/o Late Suresh Chandra Singha @
                 Sinha, resident of village Bidhanpally, P.S. E. Bazar, P.O. Malda, District-
                 Malda (W.B.), at present residing at Bhagatpara, P.O., P.S. & District-
                 Pakur                                               ... Appellant
                                          -Versus-
            1.   Daulat Sheikh, S/o Kader Sk. @ Abdul Kader Sheikh
            2.   Jamila Bibi, W/o Daulat Sheikh,
                 Both resident of village Anjana, P.O. Prithvinagar, P.S. Pakur(M), District-
                 Pakur
            3.   The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Village
                 Barhampur, P.O. & P.S. Barhampur, District- Murshidabad (W.B.)
                                                                     ... Respondents
                                            -----

            CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                                -----
            For the Appellant                : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
            For Respondent Nos.1 & 2        : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
            For Respondent No.3              : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
                                                -----

07/16.01.2023     Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellant,

Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and

Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. I.A. No.3200 of 2015 has been filed for condonation of delay of 535

days in filing the appeal, however the stamp reporter has pointed out delay

of 530 days in filing the appeal.

3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the appellant has left the district of Pakur to his own village and that is why

he was not knowing about the award and when it has come to his

knowledge, he has filed the appeal and on that ground, he seeks

condonation of delay of 530 days.

4. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for respondent no.3 vehemently opposes

the said I.A. and submits that in the claim application, the appellant has

appeared and all of a sudden he left the proceeding and thereafter award 2 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 266 of 2015

has been passed and only to file the present appeal on concocted story, the

condonation is being sought on behalf of the appellant.

5. The said contention is also supported by Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak,

learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent nos. 1 and 2.

6. In view of the above facts and considering that it has been averred

that the appellant was not knowing about the proceeding, however it is well

settled that for condonation of delay, day to day explanation is required,

which is lacking in the case in hand, however taking the liberal view so far

as the condonation of delay is concerned, the delay is condoned.

7. Accordingly, I.A. No.3200 of 2015 stands allowed and disposed of.

8. The present appeal has been filed aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

judgment and award dated 28.09.2013 passed by the learned Principal

District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Pakur in M.A.C.T. Case

No.01 of 2011 filed by the claimants-respondent nos.1 and 2, which was

partly allowed in favour of the claimants and it has been ordered that total

amount of compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- with simple interest @ 7% per

annum from the date of filing of the claim petition be given to the claimants

by way of compensation by the United India Insurance Company-

respondent no.3 and liberty was given to the insurance company to realise

the said compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

9. On merits of the case, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the vehicle was lighter one, however the learned

tribunal without considering that aspect of the matter, has passed the award

and has directed the United India Insurance Company-respondent no.3 to

certify the award and recover the same from the owner of the offending

vehicle. On that ground, he submits that this appeal is fit to be allowed. He 3 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 266 of 2015

also submits that it depends upon the weight of the vehicle whether it is

lighter or heavier.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the

United India Insurance Company-respondent no.3 submits that the

appellant has not contested the case before the tribunal and he has not

proved before the tribunal about the contention. He also submits that Exts.

A and B filed by the Insurance Company are the letters dated 19.11.2011

and 17.12.2011 issued by the D.T.O. Pakur and Binay Kumar Ambastha

respectively, which have been rightly considered by the learned tribunal. He

submits that there is no illegality in the award and the learned tribunal has

rightly passed the award. He also submits that the Insurance Company has

already certified the award, which has been accepted by Mr. Ajay Kumar

Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondent nos. 1

and 2.

11. In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the Court has perused the judgment of the

tribunal and finds that the exhibits and witnesses were examined by the

claimants in support of their case. The Insurance Company has also

appeared and filed exhibits, which have been considered by the learned

tribunal. Looking into the award, it appears that the appellant herein has

not contested the case before the tribunal and all of a sudden, he has filed

this appeal before this Court without proving about the contention with

regard to light vehicle and heavy vehicle. The learned tribunal has

considered that the driver who was driving the vehicle in question was

having a license of lighter vehicle, however the vehicle in question was

heavy and that is why, the learned tribunal has come to the conclusion that 4 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 266 of 2015

there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and has passed the

order to pay compensation amount holding that the Insurance Company will

certify the award and will recover the same from the owner of the offending

vehicle. The said point was not taken by the appellant before the tribunal,

however all of a sudden the appeal has been filed. The award has already

been certified by the Insurance Company.

12. So far as the contention of Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for

the appellant with regard to the fact that it depends upon the weight of the

vehicle whether it is lighter or heavier, it has not been proved before the

learned tribunal whether the vehicle is lighter or heavier, however

admittedly the vehicle in question is a truck which prima facie suggests that

it is a heavy vehicle and finding on that point is already there of the learned

tribunal. There is no illegality in the award.

13. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

14. Consequently, I.A. No.10148 of 2018 stands dismissed.

15. Statutory amount shall be released in favour of the Insurance

Company by the office considering that the award has been certified by the

Insurance Company.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/