[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
M/S Cholamandalam General Insurance ... vs Anupama Jha on 3 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:36321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.397 of 2023
------
M/S Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd., Chhabidas Tower,
3rd Floor, 6A Middleton Street Kolkata (West Bengal) through its Deputy
Manager, Prafull Choudhary, son of P.C. Choudhary, resident of C/o M/S
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Shri Krishna
Mathura Complex, IIIrd Floor, opposite Allahabad Bank, Circular Road, P.O.
GPO, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Anupama Jha, wife of Late Sanjay Kumar Jha
2. Ishani Jha, daughter of Late Sanjay Kumar Jha
3. Sambhavi Jha, daughter of Late Sanjay Kumar Jha
4. Bidya Devi, mother of Late Sanjay Kumar Jha
All resident of village H. No. K.H. Krishna Brinda Apartment, Dimna
Road, Mango, P.O. M.G.M. College, P.S. Dimna, District East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, Jharkhand
5. Mr. Abhay Kant Thakur, son of Antaryami Thakur, resident of near Rock
Garden, J.P. Marg, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi
6. M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager,
Branch Office at Rathore Mansion, Bank More, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bank
More, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
7. Md. Wasim Ansari, son of Samim Ansari, at 62, B.N.R., P.O. Kustore, P.S.
Kenduadih, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
.... .... .... Respondents
With
------
1. Anupama Jha, wife of Late Sanjay Kumar Jha
2. Ishani Jha, daughter of Late Sanjay Kumar Jha
3. Sambhavi Jha, daughter of Late Sanjay Kumar Jha
4. Bidya Devi, mother of Late Sanjay Kumar Jha
All resident of village H. No. K.H. Krishna Brinda Apartment, Dimna
Road, Mango, P.O. M.G.M. College, P.S. Dimna, District East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, Jharkhand .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. M/S Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd., Chhabidas
Tower, 3rd Floor, 6A Mddleton Street Kolkata (West Bengal) through its
Deputy Manager, Prafull Choudhary, son of P.C. Choudhary, resident of
C/o M/S Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Shri
Krishna Mathura Complex, IIIrd Floor, opposite Allahabad Bank, Circular
Road, P.O. GPO, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi
2. Mr. Abhay Kant Thakur, son of Antaryami Thakur, resident of near Rock
Garden, J.P. Marg, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi
3. M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager,
Branch Office at Rathore Mansion, Bank More, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bank
More, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
4. Md. Wasim Ansari, son of Samim Ansari, at 62, B.N.R., P.O. Kustore, P.S.
2025:JHHC:36321
Kenduadih, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1-4 : Ms. Nalini Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.7 : Ms. Talat Parween, Advocate
For the Petitioners: Ms. Nalini Jha, Advocate
For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the O.P. No.3 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No.4 : Ms. Talat Parween, Advocate
------
Order No.09 / Dated : 03.12.2025
Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation, whereby the liability has been fixed on it to pay
compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the death of
Sanjay Kumar Jha in a motor accident involving Maruti Omni car bearing
registration no.JH 01BG 0744 and Hyva truck bearing registration no.ORA
19J 3665.
2. Insurance Company is in appeal mainly on the ground that the
accident took place as per the FIR (Exhibit 1) when the Omni dashed Hyva
from the rear side and therefore, there was contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased/driver of the Omni in causing the accident.
3. It is argued that the FIR was lodged against driver of the Maruti
Omni car which goes to show that the accident was the result of negligence
on the part of the driver of the Omni car. It is contended that the learned
Tribunal has decided Issue No. III in favour of the claimants against the
Insurance Company, on the ground that final report after police investigation
was submitted as the driver of the car had died in the accident.
4. The accidental death and insurance of the vehicle are not in
challenge in the instant appeal. The main point for determination is whether
2025:JHHC:36321
the accident was outcome of contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased- Sanjay Kumar Jha, who was driving the Maruti Omni Car at the
relevant time of accident.
5. It is settled position of law that the FIR is not a substantive piece of
evidence and the deposition of witnesses recorded during enquiry before the
Tribunal cannot be discarded merely for the reason that contrary version
appears in the FIR. Two eye witnesses have been examined on behalf of the
claimants namely Ahmd Saif (C.W. 2) and Randhir Kumar (C.W. 3). Both
these witnesses have consistently stated that the dumper bearing registration
no.OR 19J 3665 was moving ahead of Maruti Omni car which was being
driven rashly and negligently and the proximate cause of accident was
sudden break applied by the truck driver. The consistent testimony of both
these witnesses has been considered by the learned Tribunal, while returning
a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the truck. In this view of matter, the argument extraneously made
on behalf of the Insurance Company that principle of res ipsa loquitur will
apply to establish contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the
Maruti Omni car, is not sustainable.
6. Second limb of argument is that income from the business of the
deceased was not affected, is also without any tangible evidence. It has been
deposed by C.W. 1 that the deceased was sole bread earner and therefore, it
is difficult to concede the argument of the Insurance Company that the death
did not affect income of the family.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Pending
Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
Heard learned counsel on behalf of the claimants which has been
filed for claim of interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application
which has been allowed from 08.04.2022 from the date of impleadment of
opposite party no.4- Insurance Company.
Heard both sides.
Law is settled by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, interest is payable to
2025:JHHC:36321
the claimants from the date of the claim application.
Under the circumstance, Cross Objection is allowed for the interest
on the compensation amount to be computed from the date of filing of its
claim application till date of its payment.
Cross Objection, is accordingly, allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
Uploaded
05.12.2025
