Jharkhand High Court
Manager vs Chamru Oraon on 6 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.324 of 2009
----
Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Novelty Hotel,
Palmergung, P.O., P.S. & District Lohardaga
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Chamru Oraon
2. Budhain Orain
3. Nandlal Thakur
4. Narsingh Thakur
5. Tilak Thakur @ Tilaku Thakur @ Tilaku Hazam
.... .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Achinto Sen, Adv.
For the Resp. Nos.3 to 5 : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Adv.
----
21/Dated: 06th May, 2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company against the judgment dated 05.08.2009 passed by the learned District
Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal,
Lohardaga in Compensation Case No.3 of 2004.
3. It appears that the deceased was travelling on a Tractor bearing registration
No.JH08A-508 with Trailer bearing registration No.JH08A-0514.The incident has
taken place on 22.10.2003.
4. It appears that the appellant-Insurance Company has filed an objection
under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, but that has not been considered while
considering the case under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
5. Argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company that this is a wrong procedure adopted by the Tribunal. He
could have considered the objection raised by the appellant because written
statement has been filed.
6. The basic objection has been taken by the Insurance Company that the
deceased was a gratuitous person. For this purpose, he has relied upon the
statement of the brother of the deceased in the F.I.R being Lohardaga P.S. Case
No.108 of 2023. The penal interest of 9% has also been challenged in the matter.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle
and the claimants have supported the Award.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the
record, it appears that the non-consideration of objection was not proper. The fact
remains that the issue No.5 has been framed, which reads as under:-
"V. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger or
labour at the time of accident ?"
9. The issue has been discussed and the finding has been given on the basis of
oral evidence brought on record by the claimant's side. There is some discrepancy
in the oral evidence of the Informant before the Tribunal as well as in the F.I.R. It
is settled principle of law that the statement before the Tribunal has to prevail.
10. Considering the above facts, the contention raised by the appellant-
Insurance Company is hereby, rejected.
11. So far as the penal interest is concerned, the same is hereby, recalled. The
claimants will be entitled for 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application.
Further, nothing has been paid towards the consortium and accordingly, an amount
of Rs.70,000/- is hereby, added towards the consortium.
12. With the above modification of the judgment dated 05.08.2009, the present
miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of.
13. The statutory amount shall be remitted back to the Tribunal for release of
the same either in favour of the claimants or the Insurance Company depending
upon the factual matrix of the case.
14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/-
Uploaded
