Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company ... vs Rahul Sahu
2025 Latest Caselaw 5058 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company ... vs Rahul Sahu on 23 April, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                   2025:JHHC:12008

      IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             M.A. No. 85 of 2025
      Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd, M.R. Tower, Line Tank
      Road, Ranchi P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Sadar, District-Ranchi.
                                                                ..... ..... Appellant
                               Versus
      1. Rahul Sahu, S/o Shibu Sahu, residents of village- Bakaspur, Majhila
         Toli, P.O. Lapa, P.S.- Karra, District- Khunti, (Jharkhand)
      2. Vijay Prasad, son of Bhuneshwar Saw, resident of Alaudiya, Saroj
         Nagar, P.O. + P.S. Chandwa, District Latehar (Jharkhand) (Owner of
         the vehicle No. JH-01 DJ-4943)
      3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Kutchary Road, Near Sahar Anchal,
         Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi.
                                                          .....      ...Respondents
                                With
                         M.A. No. 380 of 2024

      Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd, M.R. Tower, Line Tank
      Road, Ranchi P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Sadar, District-Ranchi.
                                                             ..... ..... Appellant
                              Versus
      1. Baleshwar Sahu S/o late Tilu Sahu
      2. Naipi Devi W/o Baleshwar Sahu
         Both residents of village- Bakaspur, Majhila Toli, P.O. Lapa, P.S.-
         Karra, District- Khunti, (Jharkhand)
      3. Vijay Prasad, son of Bhuneshwar Saw, resident of Alaudiya, Saroj
         Nagar, P.O. + P.S. Chandwa, District Latehar (Jharkhand) (Owner of
         the Vehicle No. JH-01 DJ-4943)
      4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Kutchary Road, Near Sahar Anchal,
         Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi.
                                                        .....      ...Respondents
                              --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, Advocate For the Claimants : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shivam Lath, Advocate Mr. Shivam Singh Kashyap, Advocate [In M.A. No.85 of 2025] For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shivam Lath, Advocate Mr. Shivam Singh Kashyap, Advocate [In M.A. No.380 of 2024] For the National Ins. Co. Ltd. : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate

------

06/ 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s), Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for

2025:JHHC:12008

the claimants, Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company Limited and Mr. Shivam Lath, learned counsel appearing for the owner as respondent no.2 in M.A. No.85 of 2025 & respondent no.3 in M.A. No.380 of 2024.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) submits that so far as M.A. No. 380 of 2024 is concerned, there was also delay, however, the said delay has been condoned by order dated 20.03.2025 and in the said order, it was directed that the insurance company will deposit the amount of Rs. 5,48,021/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum within two weeks. He submits that in M.A. No. 85 of 2025 there is a delay of 167 days and for condonation of said delay, I.A. No. 1265 of 2025 has been filed. He further submits that the delay of 59 days, in M.A. No.380 of 2024 has already been condoned and both these appeals are arising out of the same accident, in view of that the said delay may kindly be condoned.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Claimants, Insurance Company and owner have got no serious objection.

4. In view of the above fact and considering that in one of case, delay has already been condoned, the delay of 167 days in filing M.A. No. 85 of 2025, is hereby condoned.

5. I.A. No. 1265 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.

6. In M.A. No. 85 of 2025, challenge has been made to the award dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 194/2021 whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to award an amount of Rs.5,42,021/- along with simple interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in favour of the claimants.

7. M.A. No. 380 of 2024 has been filed challenging the award dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 193/2021 whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to award an amount of Rs.12,04,000/- along with simple interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in favour of the claimants.

8. The only ground in both these appeals has been argued for 'Admission' by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that there is

2025:JHHC:12008

delay of 27 days in lodging of the FIR and in view of that the submission has been made to admit these appeals and to buttress this argument, the learned counsel of the appellants has relied one of the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of "Busetty Srinivasulu v. P. Srinivasulu & Anr." reported in 2024 Supreme (online)(AP) 5349 and on the same line, another reliance has been placed to the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of "Km. Lalita v. Jitendra Kumar Yadav" reported in 2012 0 Supreme(All) 1073. Relying upon these judgments, learned counsel submits that these appeals may kindly be admitted.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants opposes the prayer and submits that the amount is very meager and further nothing has been paid to the claimants, in view of that these petitions may kindly be dismissed.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company, respondent no.4 submits that the said point, which has been argued before this Court, has not been taken by the appellant before the learned Tribunal and in view of that the said point is not available to the appellant herein.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle in question has submitted that the vehicle in question was already insured, in view of that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award.

12. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the impugned award dated 15.03.2024 in both the cases, as both the cases decided together, which are arising out of M.A.C. Case No. 193 of 2021 and M.A.C. Case No. 194 of 2021 respectively.

13. From the award, it transpires that the claimants instituted the said claim case for compensation stating that his elder brother namely Deepu Sahu were going to Ranchi on a Motorcycle bearing registration No. JH- 01AQ-7833. It was contended that when they reached at Village-Kachabari one Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. JH-01DJ-4943 coming from opposite direction being driven in rash and negligent manner and in uncontrolled speed dashed the Motorcycle. As a result of the said accident they sustained grievous injuries. With the help of the people of the locality the two victim were taken for treatment at City Trust Hospital, Ranchi. One

2025:JHHC:12008

of the victim Deepu Sahu died during course of treatment and the other injured victim namely Rahul Sahu with fracture leg was admitted for long treatment. Postmortem was conducted over the body of the deceased victim Deepu Sahu vide P.M. Report dated 11.09.2020. For the occurrence, common FIR was lodged vide Karra P. S. Case No. 83/20 dated 12.10.20 against, driver of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. JH- 01DJ-4943 for the offence punishable u/s 279, 337, 338 & 304A of IPC. After investigation about the alleged crime, the 1.O. submitted the charge sheet identifying Praveen Nayak as driver of the offending Bolero for the aforesaid offenses vide charge sheet No. 111/20 dated 30.11.20, the same was submitted. The father and mother of the deceased Deepu Sahu preferred claim case registered as M.A.C No.194/2021 and the injured preferred separate case registered as M.A.C No.193/2021.

14. The case of the appellant herein has been noted in the award at paragraph no.4 and looking into that paragraph, it transpires that the said ground has not been taken by the appellant herein before the learned Tribunal about the delay in lodging of the FIR. In view of the FIR, postmortem report and charge-sheet, the accident is already proved and the negligence has also been found therein and in light of that the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the same. Thus, the accident is proved and vehicle in question was insured.

15. So far the judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the case of "Km. Lalita (supra)" is concerned the fact in that case was otherwise, the ground of delay was considered and the High Court has been pleased to take note of the fact that there was a police station and also a Government hospital near to the site of accident, but FIR was lodged after 12 days and the Court was surprised that the claimant did not go to Government hospital for treatment and first treatment report was after 7 days. In that view of the matter, the said order has been passed by the Allahabad High Court. The facts of the present case is otherwise as has been discussed hereinabove.

16. The other judgment relied by the appellant in the case of "Busetty Srinivasulu (supra)" is also on different footing. In that case, rash and negligent driving have not been proved by the appellant and in this

2025:JHHC:12008

background, the said order has been passed. What has been discussed herein, the case in hand the facts of the present case is otherwise and the said ground has not been argued before the learned Tribunal by the Insurance Company and in light of the postmortem report, as it is already proved, as such this judgment is also not helping the appellant.

17. Accordingly, M.A. No. 85 of 2025 and M.A. No. 380 of 2024 are hereby dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed.

18. The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company in the respective appeals, shall be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal which will be utilized in satisfying the award.

19. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the awarded amount has already been deposited before the learned Tribunal. In that view of the matter, after satisfying the award, if any amount will remain, that will be returned to the Insurance Company and it is further made clear that if the amount is already exhausted in satisfying the award, no amount will be required to be refunded to the appellants.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) RKM/-

A.F.R