The Branch Manager Of United ... vs Md. Saifuddin Saikh @ Saifuddin ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 251 Jhar

                                         1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     M.A. No. 641 of 2016
The Branch Manager of United Insurance Company Ltd., P.O.-Nabarun, P.S.
Nabarun, N.T.P.C., Mor, District- Murshidabad (W.B.) as Branch Manager of U.I.C. of
Sahibganj (Jharkhand)              ........ Opposite Party No.3/Appellant
                             Versus
1. Md. Saifuddin Saikh @ Saifuddin Saikh, son of Md. Serazuddin Saikh, resident
   of Bindogram, P.O. Baniagram, P.S. Baniagram, District- Murshidabad- owner of
   the vehicle WB-65/1896                     ...........Opp. Party No.1/Respondent
2. Azabul Saikh, son of Anisur Rahaman resident of Auto Engineering and M.T.
   School P.O. and P.S. Raiganj, District- Uttar Dinajpur-Driver of the Vehicle WB-
   65/1896                                    ......... Opp. Party No. 2/Respondent
3. Munshi Murmu son of late Chandray Murmu resident of Teghra, P.O. and P.S.
   Barheit, District-Sahibganj (Jharkhand)          Claimant/Respondent
                     ---------

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                            ---------
For the Appellant        : Mr. Debesh Ch. Ghosh, Advocate
For the Respondents :
06/Dated: 16/01/2023

By order dated 12.04.2018 notice has been issued upon the respondents

in the limitation matter as well as in the main petition.

Office note suggests that notice has been validly served but nobody

appeared on behalf of the respondents.

I.A. No. 7817 of 2017 has been filed for condonation of delay 67 days in

filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reasons for condoning

the delay have been disclosed in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the interlocutory

application.

Looking into the said paragraphs it appears that sufficient ground has

been made for condoning the delay. Accordingly, delay of 67 days in filing the appeal

is condoned.

I.A. No. 7817 of 2017 stands allowed and disposed of.

Aggrieved with judgment and award dated 27.06.2016 passed by the

learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj in MAC Case No. 10/2010, the appellant

has preferred this appeal.

On 10.04.2008 at about 10.00 A.M. near Risor Mor at Barharwa, the

brother of the claimant was going to Resor for selling Toddy by his own bicycle. The

vehicle bearing Truck No. WB-65/1896 dashed him which was being driven by its

driver rashly and negligently. The brother of the claimant became seriously injured

and died at spot. Later on he was brought at Sub-divisional Hospital, Rajmahal and

post mortem was conducted and Barharwa P.S. Case No. 29/08 under sections

279/304(A) of the I.P.C. was instituted against Azabul Sk., O.P. No. 2, driver of the

vehicle on the alleged date of occurrence.

Pursuant to notice, opposite party-Insurance Company appeared and

filed written statement and the documents and thereafter learned tribunal has passed

award dated 27.06.2016 directing the insurance company to make payment of Rs. 4

lacs with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition to the

claimant-Munshi Murmu and thereafter may recover the said amount from O.P. No.1-

owner of the vehicle.

Mr. Debesh Ch. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company submits that the tribunal has committed error of law in deciding Issue No.

V and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and this appeal is fit to

be allowed.

In view of above submission, the court has perused the impugned

award dated 27.06.2016 and finds that while deciding Issue No. V learned Tribunal

has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987

SC 1690 (Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad V.

Ramabhai Prabhatbhai & Anr.) and decided the said issue in favour of the

claimant. So far as contention of Mr. Ghosh, with regard to Issue No. V is not

accepted by this Court. This is a case of death and only Rs. 4 lacs has been granted

with interest at the rate of 6% to the claimant. Moreover, Insurance Company has

been protected by way of recovering the said amount from the owner. The owner has

chosen not to appear in this appeal. There is no illegality in the impugned award.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant

before this Court shall be remitted to the learned tribunal. The tribunal shall take

endeavor to release the said amount and fruit of award in favour of the claimant at

the earliest.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/