The Manager vs Reshma Kumari Horo
2025 Latest Caselaw 2735 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The Manager vs Reshma Kumari Horo on 19 February, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             M.A. No. 257 of 2013
The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor Chawla Complex,
Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.), Raipur Chhatisgarh Mandal,
Karayalya No.2 (the insurer of vehicle), represented through its Sr. Divisional
Manager, Ranchi D.O.- 1, Tiwary Enclave Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.
Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi.
                                                    ....   ....   Appellant
                                  Versus
1. Reshma Kumari Horo, W/o Late Ramlakhan Oraon, resident of village
   Bargaon, Tilatoli, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, Dist.-Gumla, at present resident of
   Shastri Nagar, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, Dist.- Gumla
2. Nirmal Lakra, S/o Late Ram Lakhan Oraon (minor), aged about 2 ½ years,
   under the guardianship of his mother Reshma Kumari Horo, resident of
   village Bargaon, Tilatoli, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, Dist.- Gumla
3. Somari Devi, W/o Hazari Oraon, resident of village Bargaon, Tilatoli, P.O. &
   P.S. Gumla, Dist.- Gumla, the mother of the deceased.
4. Hazari Oraon, F/o Ram Lakhan Oraon, resident of village Bargaon, Tilatoli,
   P.O. & P.S. Gumla, Dist.- Gumla
5. Gurpal Singh, S/o Balbeer Singh, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tatibandh, Raipur,
   P.O. & P.S. Raipur, Dist.- Raipur, Chhatisgarh, (owner of vehicle No. CG-
   04JA-5395)
6. Ashik Khan, S/o Latif Khan, resident of village Hirapur, Bharveli, P.O. & P.S.
   Bharveli, Dist.- Balghat (B.P.), Madhya Pradesh, (driver of vehicle No. CG-
   04JA-5395)
                                                    ...      ....     Respondents
                                 With
                    C.O. No. 3 of 2018
1. Reshma Kumari Horo, W/o Late Ramlakhan Oraon, resident of village
   Bargaon, Tilatoli, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, Dist.-Gumla, at present resident of
   Shastri Nagar, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, Dist.- Gumla
2. Nirmal Lakra, S/o Late Ram Lakhan Oraon (minor), aged about 2 ½ years,
   under the guardianship of his mother Reshma Kumari Horo, resident of
   village Bargaon, Tilatoli, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, Dist.- Gumla
3. Somari Devi, W/o Hazari Oraon, resident of village Bargaon, Tilatoli, P.O. &
   P.S. Sissai, Dist.- Gumla, the mother of the deceased.
4. Hazari Oraon, F/o Ram Lakhan Oraon, resident of village Bargaon, Tilatoli,
   P.O. & P.S. Gumla, Dist.- Gumla
                                             ....    ....   Cross Objectors
                                Versus
1. Gurpal Singh, S/o Balbeer Singh, G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Raipur, P.O. &
   P.S. Raipur, Dist.-Raipur
2. Ashik Khan, S/o Latif Khan, resident of village Hirapur, Bharveli, P.O. &
   P.S. Bharveli, Dist.- Balghat (B.P.), Madhya Pradesh
3. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor Chawla
   Complex, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Road, P.O. & P.S. Raipur (C.G.),
   Raipur Chhatisgarh Mandal, Karayalya No.2 (the insurer of vehicle),
   represented through its Sr. Divisional Manager, Ranchi D.O.- 1, Tiwary
   Enclave Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi.
                                                   ...      ....     Respondents

                  .........

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Kumari, Advocate Mr. Shail Lakra, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Shekhar For the Respondents : Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Kumari, Advocate Mr. Shail Lakra, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate

------

Order No. 23 / Dated : 19.02.2025.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. Both these appeals (i.e., instant Misc. Appeal and Cross Objection No.03 of 2018) arise out of the common judgment and award of compensation passed in M.A.C.C. No. 59/2011, whereby and whereunder compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for the death of Ramlakhan Oraon caused in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The claim case was filed by the dependents of the deceased, impleading the owner, driver and the insurer of the vehicle as party(s). Since the owner (respondent no. 1) and driver (respondent no. 2) did not appear, therefore an ex-parte proceeding was drawn and the case was disposed of.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company in M.A. No. 257 of 2013 that despite the processes being issued, neither the owner nor the driver appeared either at the stage of inquiry or in appeal to bring on record relevant documents like permit. It is the consistent case of the Insurance Company that offending goods vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04JA-5395 was not having a valid permit at the time of accident. Reliance is placed on Ext. A which is a verification report and Ext. B which is a certificate issued by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, Chhatisgarh on 24.06.2011.

4. As per the report of the Transport Authority, the documents purported to be permit of the offending vehicle was not issued on 03.02.2009 by authorization no. 8214/2008.

5. It is further argued that despite the permit having not been proved, learned Tribunal fixed the liability on the Insurance Company by relying on

(2010) 2 ACC 441 which will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The case relied upon was regarding the question of third party liability of the Insurance Company, where the vehicle was comprehensively insured to cover the passenger(s)' risk, and it did not involve the question of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy for not having a valid permit.

6. I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that the primary onus to lead evidence regarding validity of permit was upon the owner of the vehicle, and having failed to appear and adduce any evidence in this regard goes to show that the vehicle was not having a valid permit for plying the commercial vehicle. Further, evidence has been led on behalf of the Insurance Company that the documents which were said to be permit of the vehicle were not issued by the Transport Authority. Plying of vehicle without a valid permit, was a fundamental infraction of the policy of insurance, and the insurance company was not obligated to indemnify the owner of vehicle. (See Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558). Cross Objection No.03 of 2018.

7. The claimant(s) have preferred Cross Objection for enhancement of the Award of compensation in M.A.C.C. No.59 of 2011.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that learned Tribunal has recorded a definite finding on the basis of computation of compensation that the deceased was an ex-serviceman and was getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and suffered accidental death at the age of 27 years, leaving behind four legal heirs and dependents who are the claimants in the present case. It further computed the final computation of compensation has been made to a sum of Rs.34,72,600/-. However, an award of compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs has only been made since the claimants' case was filed only for a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs.

9. Claimants are aggrieved by award of compensation that what they were entitled to i.e. Rs.34,72,600/- along with interest.

10. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3- Insurance Company has defended the impugned Award and submits that without any valid salary slip, the compensation has been awarded and the income of the deceased has been computed to be Rs.15,000/- per month.

11. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and perusing the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has computed the income of the deceased on the basis of a photocopy of the salary slip which has been adduced into evidence without any objection. Therefore, at this stage, the income of the deceased cannot be disputed.

12. Further, the learned Tribunal has committed an error while awarding a compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs, while computing the final compensation to Rs.34,72,600/- only on the ground that the claimants' case was filed for Rs.20 Lakhs. Law in this regard is settled that the object is to award a just compensation and if the claimants have failed to plead a higher compensation, the same cannot be denied (see Surekha Versus Santosh 2020 SCC Online 1312).

13. Respondent No.3- Oriental Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.34,72,600/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of claim application till its realization before the learned Tribunal within two months from today and the same will be disbursed to the claimants as per the term fixed by the learned Tribunal.

14. However, Respondent No.3- Oriental Insurance Company will have a right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle. It goes without saying that the amount already paid to the claimants will be deducted from the final compensation amount.

15. The statutory amount, if any, deposited at the time of filing of the instant Misc. Appeal shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal so as to adjust/pay to the claimants.

Both the Misc. Appeal as well as Cross Objection are allowed accordingly.

Pending I. A(s)., if any, stand disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -