Jharkhand High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Madhu Bala on 19 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:24297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.315 of 2015
------
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur, through Branch Manager, New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., Lepo Road, near Laxmi Chitra Mandir Campus,
Vidya Market, At P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Madhu Bala, wife of Late Rama Kant Pandey
2. Juhi Pandey, daughter of Late Rama Kant Pandey
Both residing at Village Meru, P.O. Meru, P.S. Sadar (Muffasil),
District Hazaribagh
3. Tata Motors Limited, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East
4. Sachindra Prasad, son of Late R. Prasad, resident of Sitaram Dera, P.O. &
P.S. Sitaram Dera, Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East (Jamshedpur)
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate
Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
------
Order No.19 / Dated : 19.08.2025
Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation passed in Claim Case No.166 of 2007 whereby and
whereunder, a compensation of Rs.10,30,044/- has been awarded in favour
of the claimant with interest @ 6% per annum since the date of settlement of
issue i.e. 16.03.2012 and to be paid within two months. In the event of delay
in payment within stipulated time, interest @ 9% per annum from
11.05.2015.
2. Learned trial Court recorded a finding that the deceased- Rama
Kant Pandey died in a motor vehicle accident while he was driving his
motorcycle, which met with an accident involving truck bearing chassis
no.06B 16C 34075 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
offending truck. It was also held that the truck was under the insurance
cover of the appellant-Insurance Company. Deceased was a Government
servant with a monthly income of Rs.11,768/- and the award of
compensation was made accordingly.
3. It is argued by Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
2025:JHHC:24297
Insurance Company that only cover note was filed, not the policy paper
before the Tribunal. The driving license of the driver was found to be fake
by the investigator. Further, the deceased was also having a driving license
and therefore, it was a case of contributory negligence.
4. Learned counsel on behalf of claimants submits that no evidence
has been led in support of the averment that the vehicle was not under the
insurance cover of the appellant-Insurance Company. Further, no evidence
has been produced to prove that the driver was having a fake driving
license. Lastly, it is argued that there was no causal link regarding absence of
driving license resulting in an accident, rather it has come in evidence that
FIR and charge sheet were filed against the driver of the offending truck,
and the oral evidence examined before the Tribunal, have also stated that
the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle.
5. Learned counsel on behalf of the Tata Motors submits that the cover
note was issued on 17.03.2006 and the accident took place during the period
of insurance policy.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both
sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I do not find any infirmity in
the impugned order.
7. There is merit in the argument on behalf of the claimants that there
is no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was in any way
responsible for the accident, therefore, any finding regarding contributory
negligence is discarded. Evidence suggests that the vehicle was under the
insurance cover of the appellant- Insurance Company and no contrary
evidence has been led.
8. Under the circumstance, compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is
affirmed.
9. However, judgment and award is modified as under.
Firstly, the award of compensation under conventional head has
been given to Rs.2000/- which is not in consonance with the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, therefore, it is to be
2025:JHHC:24297
increased to Rs.77,000/-
Secondly, penal interest has been awarded which cannot be allowed
in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur & Others, (2004) 2 SCC 370. Therefore,
penal interest part is set aside. Interest awarded is 6% from the date of
issuance which is altered to 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
application.
With this modification in award, the Miscellaneous Appeal
stands dismissed.
Statutory amount transmitted to the Tribunal to be paid to the
claimants and adjusted against final compensation amount within two
months. Insurance Company to make payment to the Tribunal of the
remaining amount, if any, within one month from the date of this order.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
