Jharkhand High Court
The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Ashutosh Dixit Son Of Sri Binod Narayan ... on 11 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.177 of 2010
------
The National Insurance Company Ltd., at Natraj Mansion, Bye Pass Road,
Chas, District Bokaro, Insurer of the Vehicle No. BR 20E 7709, represented
through its Assistant Manager, Legal Cell, National Insurance Company
Ltd., Ranchi Division, S.N. Ganguly Road, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi,
P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Ashutosh Dixit son of Sri Binod Narayan Dixit, resident of Mohalla
Nawatoli (Amitabh Kunj), P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau
2. Rustam Ansari, son of Albabu Ansari, resident of Sylagidih, P.O. and P.S.
Chas, District Bokaro, owner of vehicle No. BR 20E 7709
3. Shakti Pad Mahto son of Bidyadhar Mahato, resident of Village Shri
Rampur, P.S. Panchpur, District Purulia (W.B.), driver of vehicle No. BR
20E 7709
4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Rajdhani Bhawan, Dharmshala
Road, Daltonganj, Palamau 822101, Insurer of the vehicle No. BR 15 5671
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. K.L. Ojha, Advocate
------
Order No.14 / Dated : 11.02.2025
Insurance Company is in appeal against the award of compensation
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for disability of Ashutosh Dixit
in a motor vehicle accident involving Maruti car bearing registration no.BR
15 5671 and the Tanker bearing registration no.BR 20E 7709. At the time of
accident, the Tanker was under the insurance cover of the appellant.
2. Learned Tribunal computed the compensation by taking monthly
income of the claimant of Rs.16942.50 and considering the disablement, the
final compensation amount of Rs.15,72,000/- was awarded with simple
interest @ 6% per annum.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel that as per the pleading of the
claimant at para 5 and 12, the claimant was having income of Rs.1,64,000/-
per annum by way of pay from a well reputed Company namely Cadila
Pharma Limited. Learned Tribunal has accepted the income of the claimant
beyond the pleadings and took Rs.16942.50 as monthly income which works
as Rs.2,03,310/-.
4. It is submitted that full amount has been deposited in compliance to
the order of the Court dated 16.09.2010.
5. It is further argued that it was the case of contributory negligence,
but the liability has been solely fixed on the insurer of the truck and no
liability has been fixed on the insurer of Maruti van.
6. Learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.4- insurer of Maruti
van has defended the judgment.
7. On perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that specific
reason has been assigned in para 37, 38 and 39 of the impugned judgment
for taking Rs.16942.50 as monthly income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal
has taken note of Exhibit 7, 7/A and 7/B which were salary slips for the
months of September, November and December, 2002 in which the gross
salary income was Rs.11,714/- However, Exhibit 7/A shows the income
including incentive of Rs.8288/- on the basic salary of Rs.11,714/- which
came to the figure of Rs.20,002/-. In this view of matter, the averment of the
applicant regarding the monthly earning of Rs.16942.50 at the time of
accident, was accepted.
8. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, the charge sheet was
filed against driver of the truck and the Tribunal has recorded a definite
finding of negligence on the part of the truck. Therefore, the second ground
is not sustainable. In this view of matter, the Miscellaneous Appeal
preferred by the Insurance Company fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
The Statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of appeal, will be
remitted to learned Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant. Insurance
Company is further directed to make full and final satisfaction of
compensation amount within a month of the order. It goes without saying
that ad interim compensation if earlier paid, will be deducted from the final
compensation amount to be paid by the Insurance Company. Interlocutory
Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
