National Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered ... vs Ruksana Khatoon
2025 Latest Caselaw 2238 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered ... vs Ruksana Khatoon on 8 August, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                     2025:JHHC:22920




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            M. A. No. 416 of 2014

National Insurance Co. Ltd. registered office-3, Middlaton (Middleton) Street,
Post Box No. 3229, Kolkata having being issued by its Divisional Office of
Jamshedpur and represented by the Branch Manager, Giridih Branch Giridih at
Kutchery Road, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih(T), Dist.-Giridih, through Deepak
Mukherjee Assistant Manager, Jharkhand Legal Cell, Kutchery Road, Ranchi

                                       ....     ....             Appellant
                          Versus
1. Ruksana Khatoon, W/o Md. Muslim Ansari
2. Md. Muslim Ansari, S/o Md. Ajij
3. Md. Taslim, S/o Md. Muslim Ansari, all residing at Village-Dumardhia,
   P.O.-Arkhango, P.S.-Dhanwar, Dist.-Giridih
4. Narayan Gope, S/o Chamru Gope, R/o at Dhansari Colony Chandmari,
   P.O.-Chandmari, P.S.-Dhanwar, Dist.-Dhanbad (owner of Mini Bus)
5. Nageshwar Singh, S/o Late Mathura Singh, R/o Koderma, P.O. & P.S.-
   Koderma, Dist.-Koderma (Driver of Mini Bus)
                                              ....    ....     Respondents
                          With
                    C.O. No. 28 of 2021

1. Ruksana Khatoon, W/o Md. Muslim Ansari
2. Md. Muslim Ansari, S/o Md. Ajij
3. Md. Taslim, S/o Md. Muslim Ansari, All residing at Village-Dumardhia,
   P.O.-Arkhango, P.S.-Dhanwar, Dist.-Giridih .... ....        Cross Objectors
                          Versus
1. Narayan Gope, S/o Chamru Gope, R/o at Dhansari Colony Chandmari,
   P.O.-Chandmari, P.S.-Dhanwar, Dist.-Dhanbad (owner of Mini Bus)
2. Nageshwar Singh, S/o Late Mathura Singh, R/o Koderma, P.O. & P.S.-
   Koderma, Dist.-Koderma (Driver of Mini Bus)
3. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. registered office-3, Middlaton (Middleton)
   Street, Post Box No. 3229, Kolkata having being issued by its Divisional
   Office of Jamshedpur and represented by the Branch Manager, Giridih
   Branch Giridih at Kutchery Road, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih(T), Dist.-Giridih,
                                               ....   ....     Respondents
                           -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

For the Appellant          : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Cross Objectors    : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate
                             Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate
                           -----
Oral Order
09   / Dated : 08.08.2025

1. M. A. No. 416 of 2014 is preferred by the Insurance-Company against the award of compensation in which a total liability has been fixed on it to pay compensation to the claimants. Cross Objection No. 28 of 2021 has been 2025:JHHC:22920

preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount.

2. The factum of accident is not in dispute that on 18.12.2009 Md. Jamal while going by his motorcycle bearing Registration No. WB-01R-5409 met with an accident with a bus bearing Registration No. JH-02G-4219 regarding which Dhanwar PS Case No. 253/2009 was registered against the driver of the bus under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was under the insurance cover of the appellant-Company.

3. Learned Trial Court has awarded compensation of Rs.2,27,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum taking monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month.

4. Challenge to the award is two folds. Firstly, it is submitted that it is a case of head on collision between the motorcycle and therefore it was a case of contributory negligence. Consequently, compensation should have been accordingly apportioned. Secondly, deceased was not having a valid driving licence, as it was specifically pleaded in para-6 of the WS by the Insurance Company before the trial Court. Driving the motorcycle without driving licence was a factor which has not been considered. The High Court of Delhi in AIR OnLine 2019 Del 111 (Rehmani Begum & Ors. Vs. Krishna Pal & Ors.) has held that while relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2012) 4 SCC 552 has held that in absence of a valid permit to drive, deceased should not have driven motorcycle on public road.

5. Second limb of argument is that there is a delay in preferring the Cross Objection and, therefore, it cannot be a factor for enhancement of compensation. Since it is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation, compensation cannot be enhanced. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.A. No. 131 of 2016.

6. So far as the issue of cross objection is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, and rightly so, that since the case is still running under the heading for admission and cross objection was filed before the commencement of hearing, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the claimants to file cross objection.

7. It is argued that with regard to absence of license, no pleading was raised and no issue was cast and it has been taken for the first time before this Court. In reply, it is argued by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that in

2025:JHHC:22920

paras-6 and 8 of the written statement, there is specific plea of absence of driving license and negligence on the part of the deceased who was the driver of the motorcycle.

8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the mandate of law is to award just and fair compensation as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2021 (16) SCC 467. Whether cross-objections are filed or not hardly matters. Cross Objection cannot be said to be time barred and there is merit to consider the cross-objection.

9. In the absence of any other evidence indicating contributory negligence, the mere failure to produce the driving licence on record cannot, by itself, be a valid ground to attribute contributory negligence. In the present case, FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending bus, chargesheet was filed against the driver, and witnesses have deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said driver. While the absence of a valid driving licence may amount to a violation of motor vehicle rules, it does not, by itself, establish a causal link to the accident. Unless it is shown that the lack of a licence had a direct bearing on the occurrence of the accident, no inference of contributory negligence can be drawn on that basis. Accordingly, the plea raised by the Insurance Company is found to be without merit and is hereby rejected.

10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs 3000/- and accepted the age to be 19 years and applied the multiplier taking the age of the parents, as the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident.

11. Tribunal fell in error by taking the age of the parents in determining the multiplier which is against the ratio laid in Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors, (2015) 6 SCC 347, where in it has been held that the determining multiplier will be that of the deceased and not parents. Further the Tribunal also fell in error in not awarding compensation under the heading of future prospect and the amount on conventional head is also not as per the settled law. As per the ratio laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 (para-30 &31) & National Insurance Company Limited VS Pranay Sethi, 2017 16 SCC 680 applicable dependency shall be 50% and multiplier will be 18 and addition under future prospect will be 50%.

2025:JHHC:22920

12. The final compensation amount shall accordingly work out as per the table given below:

     Annual Income Rs3,000x12                     Rs 36,000/-
     Annual dependency after deducting Rs 18,000/-
     50%          on the living and personal
     expenses of the deceased
     Applying multiplier of 18                    Rs 3,24,000/-
     Future Prospect @ 50%                        Rs,1,62,000/-
     Conventional head                            Rs 77,000
     Total                                        Rs 5,63,000/-

13. The claimants shall therefore be entitled to compensation of Rs.

5,63,000 with interest @ of 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of claim application from the appellant Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is accordingly directed to make payment of the compensation amount to the Tribunal within a month of this order. Statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company at the time of filing of the appeal to be remitted to the Tribunal for being paid to the claimants against the final compensation.

14. Apportionment of share among the claimants to be 1/3rd each.

Miscellaneous Appeal and Counter Objection accordingly stand disposed of.

Pending, I.A. if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra