Branch Manager vs Kokila Devi & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1932 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                   M.A. No. 527 of 2018
                          ........

Branch Manager, Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited .... ..... Appellant Versus Kokila Devi & Others .... ..... Respondents WITH M.A. No. 292 of 2020 ........

Kokila Devi & Another .... ..... Appellants Versus Nand Lal Manjhi & Another .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.

For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate.

[In M.A. No. 527/2018] For the Appellants : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.

[In M.A. No. 292/2020]

The matters are being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

........

08/04.05.2023.

Learned counsel for the appellant - Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, Mr. Alok Lal has submitted, that M.A. No. 527/2018 has been preferred with delay of 191 days against the award dated 18.11.2017 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 227/2013, whereby the claimants namely, Kokila Devi, wife of Late Sohrai Mahto and Pramila Kumari, daughter of Late Sohrai Mahto (minor), represented by her mother and natural guardian Kokila Devi, have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,74,000/- to be paid within 30 days from the date of the award along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of admission of the claim application i.e. 02.12.2013 till its realization.

Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company has further submitted, that the learned Tribunal has completely erred in holding Issue No. 4 that no any violation terms and conditions of the insurance policy committed by the insured owner of the offending vehicle by not taking judicial notice of Exhibit-5, which has been

issued from Opposite Party No. 2 (Insurance Company) valid for the period from 11.01.2013 at 13:00 hours to midnight of 10.01.2014, though the time of accident is 21.12.2012 and as such, in absence of any evidence of insurance coverage, the learned Tribunal ought to have shifted the liability upon the Owner the Offending Vehicle as it is case of no policy.

Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company has further submitted, that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of admission of claim application i.e. 02.12.2013 till its realization, which ought to have been @7.5% per annum in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008 (12) SCC 208.

Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company has further submitted, that Exhibit-8 (Photocopy of Tax Token for the offending vehicle Tempo registration no. JH-01AQ-0256 in the name of Nand Lal Manjhi) has not been considered by the learned Tribunal, which was effective from 05.01.2013 to 03.05.2013 and as such, at the time of accident on 21.12.2012, the offending vehicle was not having valid permit, as such liability ought to have been fastened upon the Owner of the offending vehicle.

Learned counsel for the respondents / claimants (In M.A. No. 527/2018), Mr. Nikhil Ranjan has submitted, that all these questions are relevant for the Owner of the Offending Vehicle, as such, he may be noticed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants (In M.A. No. 292/2020), Mr. Laxman Kumar has submitted, that so far the income of the deceased is concerned, the same has been considered by learned Tribunal to be Rs. 3,000/- per month for an accident dated 21.12.2012, which is on the meagre side against the claim of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month, as in the case of Chameli Devi & Others Vs. Jivrail Mian & Others, reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in absence of any evidence, has considered the income of the deceased, who was Carpenter and lost his life on 02.01.2001, to be Rs. 5,000/- per month. Here the deceased was a vegetable seller, as

such, his income cannot be less than Rs. 5,000/- per month, that too after 11 years of case of Chameli Devi, as such, it may be considered to be Rs. 8,000/- per month.

Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants, Mr. Laxman Kumar has further submitted, that there is delay of 977 days in preferring the present appeal i.e. M.A. No. 292/2020, which may be condoned and the compensation amount may be enhanced.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in M.A. No. 292/2020, Mr. Alok Lal has submitted, that whatever the amount is enhanced, those are to be indemnified by the Owner of the Offending Vehicle, as there is no Insurance Coverage, as such, appearance of Owner of the Offending Vehicle is required in these cases.

Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted, that the vehicle was properly insured, as Annexure-1/1 has been brought on record in M.A. No. 527/2018, where it has been shown that the vehicle was insured for the period from 09.11.2011 to 08.11.2012 and there must be a continuous process because subsequently another Insurance Policy has been issued which has been marked as Exhibit-5, but the same can only be clarified by the Owner of the offending vehicle.

Let notice be issued upon the Owner of Offending Vehicle namely, Nand Lal Manjhi, son of Haricharan Manjhi, resident of Marangpiri, P.o. - Kochasinjiri, P.S. - Arki, District - Khunti through Speed Post, for which appellant in M.A. No. 527/2018 and appellants in M.A. No. 292/2020 shall file requisites etc. by 05.05.2023.

Office to track the Speed Post delivery.

Let these matters appear after service of notice.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-