Divisional Manager vs Pushpa Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 366 Jhar

                                       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      M.A. No. 264 of 2015

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Limited, Park Hotel Ramgarh Cantt.
District-Hazaribagh also having its Divisional Office at S.N. Ganguly Road, P.O.
Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi
                                       ........ Defendant NO. 2/Appellant
                            Versus
1. Pushpa Devi, wife of late Bipin Kumar Singh
2. Shubham son of late Bipin Kumar Singh
3. Sonu son of late Bipin Kumar Singh
4. Nagdeo Prasad Singh, son of late Manki Singh (Deleted vide order dated
   08.02.2022)
5. Nagmati Devi, wife of Nagdeo Prasad Singh
   All residents of Anand Market, Sector-I, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-
   Ranchi                      .......(Claimant 1 to 5 respectively).

6. Anil Kumar Jain, son of Manilal Jain resident at Gola Road, Sahu Colony Ward
   No. 4, Holding No. 31-A, Ramgarh Cantt, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District-
   Hazaribagh, Temporary address at Near Jain Mandir, Upper Bazar, P.O. Ranchi,
   P.S. Kotwali, 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 5: Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 6       : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate

10/Dated: 20/01/2023

Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai,

learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned

counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. Aggrieved with judgment and judgment dated 08.01.2015 passed by

the Presiding Officer Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation

Case No. 255 of 1998, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Compensation Case No. 255 of 1998 has been filed by Puspa Devi,

Shubham, Sonu, Nagdeo Prasad Singh and Nagmati Devi as the legal representative

of the deceased namely, Bipin Kumar Singh. Claimant No. 2 and 3 Shubham and Sonu

were the minors on the date of filing of the claim application represented through

their mother and natural guardian namely, Puspa Devi, the claimant no. 1 is the

widow, claimant no. 2 and 3 are minor sons of the deceased and claimant no. 4 and 5

are parents of the deceased.

4. On 07.11.1998 at about 11.30 A.M. the deceased Bipin Kumar Singh

aged about 30 years was going to Ranchi town on his scooter bearing registration no.

BR 15S-3828 and when the deceased reached near Darji Mohalla, Doranda a truck

bearing registration no. BR-14H-6018 driven rashly and negligently by its driver at a

very high speed dashed from back side and hit the deceased, the deceased fell down

from its scooter and truck ran over him. Bipin Kumar Singh died on the spot. Doranda

P.S. Case No. 260/1998 was registered and the driver of the truck was charge sheeted

as an accused in the said case. In the claim application at column no. 5 it is

mentioned that the deceased was having an income of Rs. 4,000/- per month while at

para 10 sub para IV it is mentioned that the deceased was having earning Rs.

14,000/- per month.

5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the

ground of forgery which has been dealt with by the learned tribunal its claim was fit

to be rejected though the learned tribunal has allowed the claim which is not in

accordance with law. He further submits that driving licence was not valid that point

has been taken by the insurance company in that view of the matter the liability is

fastened upon the owner of the vehicle in question to prove the driving licence. To

buttress his argument, he relied in the case of " Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar

& Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 208. Lastly, it has been submitted that quantum of

compensation is not in accordance with law. On these grounds he submits that

appeal is fit to be allowed.

6. Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to

5 submits that so far as pleadings with regard to income is concerned that has been

dealt with by the learned tribunal and the claimants have already been punished by

way of taking into income of Rs. 3,000/-. In para 9 of the judgement it has been

recorded that photo copy of driving licence has been brought on record. He further

submits that there is nothing contrary to hold that quantum has been wrongly

assessed by the tribunal.

7. Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 who is

owner, submits that although in para 1 it has been recorded that the case has been

proceeded ex parte against the opposite party no. 1 though the ordersheet itself

suggests that the O.P. No. 1 is represented through Sri Suresh Kumar Singh, learned

advocate. He submits that even assuming that the O.P. No. 1 has not appeared the

law point can be argued before this Court. He submits that it is an admitted fact

that the vehicle in question was insured with the insurance company and

considering that learned tribunal has allowed the compensation case. He further

submits that no liability can be fastened upon the upon the owner and there is no

illegality in quantum and this appeal is fit to be dismissed.

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 took place on 07.11.1998. The contrary statement has been taken by the

claimants with regard to income of the deceased which was also dealt with by the

tribunal and in lesser side the income of the deceased was taken to the tune of Rs.

3,000/- and on that basis learned tribunal passed judgment.

9. Admittedly, the accident has taken place. Death has occurred. The vehicle

was insured with the appellant and on that point, the argument of Mr. Alok Lal,

learned counsel for the appellant is not accepted by this Court. Admittedly, photo

copy of the driving licence was brought on record which has been taken care of by

the learned tribunal at para 15 of the judgment and it has been rightly held that

nothing contrary has been proved by the insurance company by way of adducing any

evidence. So far as driving licence is concerned, in that view of the matter the

judgment relied by Mr. Alok Lal is not helping the appellant. In that case driving

licence was not brought on record. So far as quantum is concerned, learned tribunal

has rightly considered the age of the deceased, the Court finds that there is no

illegality in the quantum.

10. So far as the loss of consortium, love, affection and care and

guardianship are concerned that is required to be considered in the light of judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 in which para 52 it has been held that on that

account only Rs. 70,000/- has to be paid, future prospect is 40% in that view of the

matter so far as future prospect is concerned that is required to be modified to the

40% of future prospect and the consortium is required to be modified in the light of

"Pranay Shethi" (supra) to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- considering that the insurance

company has not satisfied the award so far as interest is concerned, the Court is not

inclined to interfere with that part.

11. This appeal is disposed of with modification in above terms i.e. Rs.

70,000/- in conventional head and 40% in future prospect are required to be paid.

The rest of the finding of the learned tribunal shall remain intact.

12. The appellant shall satisfy the award within eight weeks. The statutory

amount deposited by the appellant shall be remitted to the learned tribunal and the

learned tribunal shall take endeavor to release the said amount and fruit of award in

favour of the claimants at the earliest if the same has not been provided as yet.

13. Let L.C.R. be remitted back to the concerned court forthwith.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/