Jharkhand High Court
M/S New India Assurance Company ... vs Lalita Devi on 4 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 333 of 2018
M/s New India Assurance Company Limited ..... ...... Appellant
Versus
1. Lalita Devi
2. Rajesh Rai
3. Suresh Rai
4. Subhash Rai
5. Kiran Kumari
6. Satyawati Devi .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents :
--------
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the
appellant has no objection with it and submitted that audio and video qualities are good.
Order No.07/Dated: 4th May, 2023
Heard, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant-M/s New India Assurance Company Limited.
The appellant-M/s New India Assurance Company Limited has
preferred the instant Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment dated
27.01.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-XIV cum Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 70 of 2015,
whereby the claimants, namely, 1. Lalita Devi, wife of Late Ram Lal Rai, 2.
Rajesh Rai, son of late Ram Lal Rai, 3. Suresh Rai, son of Late Ram Lal Rai,
4. Subhash Rai, son of late Ram Lal Rai and 5. Kiran Kumari, daughter of
late Ram Lal Rai have been awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.13,30,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of
suit till its payment to be made within 60 days.
Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad in law and as
the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased and
has not followed the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and,
as such, the impugned order may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
owner of the vehicle has not produced the original driving license of the
driver of the offending vehicle, as such, right of recovery might have been
given to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the
offending vehicle, as such, the impugned order is fit to be set aside.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of
the impugned award, it appears that issue No.4 has been dealt with issue
No.5 at paragraph No.12 of the impugned award and a photocopy of the
driving license of the driver, namely, Pinku Choudhary has been marked for
identification as 'Z', which shows that the driver was eligible for driving
LMV and HGV till 28.09.2017, thus covered date of occurrence i.e.
04.02.2015. Since no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the
Insurance Company or raised any dispute about the same before the learned
Tribunal, the issued raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this
Court, is rejected as the document has been brought on record and in view of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmala
Kothari vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2020 SCC
OnLine 286, it is duty of the Insurance company to bring contrary evidence
on record.
Since nothing has been found irregular or improper in computation
of the award, this Court is not inclined to admit this appeal, accordingly, the
instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed.
The Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the award within
60 days as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall
be remitted to the learned Tribunal/ Executing Court to indemnify the same
as part of the award. If it is found in excess of the awarded amount paid by
the Insurance Company, the same shall be returned to the Insurance
Company.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Madhav/-
