Jharkhand High Court
Kunti Devi vs Rajnish Singh on 23 January, 2023
1 M.A. No.569 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
M.A. No. 569 of 2015
----
Kunti Devi, wife of Shyam Bihari Singh, resident of Village Sahijana, P.O.
and P.S. and District-Garhwa (Applicant No.2) .... Appellant
-- Versus --
1.Rajnish Singh, son of Bisham Singh, resident of Bhojpur House, Bauri
Para, Ambikapur, P.O. and P.S. Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (Chhattisgarh)
(The owner of Singh Bus No.CJ-15A-4435)
2.The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (A
Government of India Undertaking), Corporate of Registered Office Oriental
House, P.B. No.7037A-2527, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, through
Branch Office, Oriental Insurance Company Limited ( Insurer of Bus
No.CG-15A-4435) Daltonganj, P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau
3.Vijay Kumar Singh, son of late Radhika Narayan Singh, resident of
Village Abadganj, P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, District-Palamau (Driver of
Singh Bus No.CG-15A-4435) ....... Respondent/Opposite Parties
4.Swati Rani Devi @ Swati Rani, wife of late Manoj Kumar Singh, daughter
of Rupdeo Singh, resident of Village Shahijana P.O. Garhwa, P.S. Garhwa,
District Garhwa, presently residing at Village Basdiha, P.O. Husainabad,
P.S. Husainbad, District Palamau
..... (Applicant/petitioner No.1)
..... Respondents/Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Resp.No.1 :- Mr. Sabya Sanchi, Advocate
For the Resp.No.2 :- Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.No.4 :- Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
----
13/23.01.2023 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Mr. Sabya Sanchi, Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr.
Girish Mohan Singh, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1,2 and 4 respectively and inspite of valid notice the
respondent no.3 has chosen not to appear who was driver of the
offending vehicle.
This appeal has been filed being dissatisfied with the award
dated 06.12.2014 passed by learned District Judge-II-cum-Motor Vehicle
Accident Claim Tribunal, Garhwa Passed in Motor Vehicle Case No.24 of
2010.
The claimants have filed the claim case stating therein that
on 01.04.2010 the deceased namely Manoj Kumar Singh, an Advocate
was going from Garhwa to Bhandariya at about 5.00 O'clock morning for
his personal work by his motorcycle bearing registration no.CG15CC-4531
along with his friend namely Pramod Kacchhap, but in the meantime, the
driver of the vehicle Bus bearing registration No.CG15A-4435 coming
from the opposite side with high speed, because of rash and negligent
driving, caused accident at Vill-Bhauri Chowk, P.S. Ranka, District Garhwa
at about 6.00 O'clock morning and the deceased sustained serious fatal
injuries by the said vehicle and the deceased namely Manoj Kumar Singh
died on the spot and thereafter Ranka (Garhwa) P.S.Case No.23/10 dated
01.04.2010 under sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the I.P.C was
registered by the Ranka Police against the vehicle bearing registration
No.CG-15A-4435 and after the investigation in this case the charge sheet
has been submitted. A photocopy of the post-mortem report of the
deceased namely Manoj Kumar Singh as well as death certificate of the
said deceased has been submitted by the applicants in the tribunal.
The learned Tribunal after framing of the issue as well as
considering the evidences on record, oral as well as documentary, has
passed the award directing the insurance company to pay the
compensation to the extent of Rs.20 Lakhs with simple interest of 9 %
per annum till realization from 1.3.2011 and Rs.25,000/- as funeral
expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- as loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- on account
of loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- as loss of estate, but without
interest were also allowed.
The learned counsel was directed to submit two separate
cheques of equal amount in the name of the applicant no.1 and 2
respectively. The appellant is the mother of the deceased.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Swati
Rani wife of late Manoj Kumar Singh has re-married during the pendency
of the claim application itself and the amount allowed in her favour by
the learned Tribunal is required to be interfered with and she is not
entitled to the said amount and the appellant is entitled for that amount.
On this ground, he submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed.
Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/claimant who is respondent no.4 in this appeal submits that
at the time of accident she has suffered loss and this aspect of the
matter has been considered by the High Court as well as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and it has been held in several judgments that
re-marriage is not a ground of not granting the compensation to the
widow of the deceased.
Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the insurance
company fairly submits that the insurance company has not challenged
the award.
Mr. Sabya Sanchi, the learned counsel appearing for the
owner submits that the vehicle in question was validly insured with the
insurance company and the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the order.
In view of the submission of the learned counsels appearing
on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the judgment of the
learned Tribunal and finds that the ground taken by the appellant herein
has been considered by the learned Tribunal and considering the
provision of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly section 4 of that
Act, with regard to inheritance of the property which specified under
clause -1 of the schedule wherein it has been disclosed that widow
comes under the first class legal heir/successor and further considering
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Gujarat State
Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai" reported in
(1987) 3 SCC 234, the learned Tribunal has met out the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant herein.
Considering the reasons assigned with regard to the point
argued on behalf of the appellant, the Court finds that there is no
illegality in the award and apart from that, no other point is argued on
behalf of the appellant.
Accordingly, M.A. No.569 of 2015 is dismissed.
If the award is not satisfied, the insurance company shall
take endeavour to satisfy the award within six weeks.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
