Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company Limited ... vs Lila Bhuia Wife Of Late Raja Ram Bhuia on 27 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.581 of 2015
------
National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, B.P.
Agawalla Building, P.O. Dhansar, P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Lila Bhuia wife of Late Raja Ram Bhuia
2. Rabi Bhuia (Minor) son of Late Raja Ram Bhuia
3. Minu Bhuia (Minor) son of Late Raja Ram Bhuia
4. Mamta Kumari (Minor) daughter of Late Raja Ram Bhuia
Respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 are minors and are being represented through
their mother respondent no.1 as natural guardian and next friend
5. Chandra Bhushan Sharma son of Kedar Singh, resident of Chirkunda,
P.O. and P.S. Chirkunda, District Dhanbad
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Manjusri Patra, Advocate
Ms. Mahua Palit, Advocate
------
Order No.10 / Dated : 27.02.2025
Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in Title
(M.V.) Suit No.21/2007 by which the liability has been fixed on the
Insurance Company.
2. As per the case of the claimant on 12.03.2005 at 2:45 p.m, the death
of Raja Ram Bhuia, who was returning home after duty from Basantimata
Colliery, was dashed by a truck bearing registration no. JH 10D 8984, as a
result, he was entrapped in electric wire of a pole by the side of road,
resulting in his instantaneous death.
3. Learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accidental death
was due to rash and negligent driving by the said truck. Further, there was
valid and effective driving license. As the permit was not produced by either
side therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no breach of Insurance
Policy since no evidence was brought on record by the Insurance Company
regarding breach of it.
4. The judgment and award of compensation has been assailed mainly
on the ground that it was incumbent on the part of the owner of the vehicle
i.e. respondent no.5 to produce the permit and failure on his part to produce
the document, an adverse inference also liable to be drawn that the vehicle
had no valid permit at the time of accident. As a matter of fact, the owner of
the vehicle did not even appear to contest the claim. It is further argued that
as per the post-mortem examination report, the death was due to Asphyxia
by strangulation which is tell tale sign of a homicidal death, but it has been
given a colour of accidental death.
5. This appeal is proceeding ex-parte against owner of vehicle and the
counsel on behalf of claimant has appeared and defended the judgment of
award and compensation.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel, Ms. Manjusri Patra that award of
compensation under head of conventional head is not as per law 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. Further, the deceased was
aged 32 years and no loss under the head of future prospect has been given.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides
and the materials on record, I find merit in the argument advanced on behalf of
Insurance Company that there was onus of leading evidence regarding vehicle
being plied on valid permit on the owner of the vehicle. The owner of vehicle
did not appear and so the said document has not been brought on record and
not proved. Therefore, there was breach of policy of insurance, for plying the
vehicle without a valid and effective permit.
8. So far, the argument regarding homicidal death of the deceased is
concerned, from the FIR (Exhibit 1), it is evident that the case was lodged on the
very same day of the accident, wherein it has been stated that the accident had
taken place in which the deceased was hit by the offending truck. Further, after
investigation, charge-sheet (Exhibit 2) was also filed under Sections 279/304A
of the IPC against the driver of the offending truck. The direct eye witness to
the accident (C.W. 2) has been examined, who has attributed accident to the
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. Under the circumstance, I
do not find any infirmity in the finding of rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the truck.
9. There is merit in the argument advanced on behalf of claimants that
the compensation amount has not been computed as per the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Versus Delhi
Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and further followed in
Pranay Sethi case (supra), no compensation has been awarded under the head
of future prospect and also under the conventional head only Rs.9500/- has
been awarded. Taking the age of deceased at the time of accident to be 32 years
and annual income of Rs.8100/- and 1/4th deduction under living expenses of
the deceased, the final compensation amount will work out as under: -
Annual Income Rs.8100/-x12 Rs.97200/-
Annual dependency after deducting Rs.72900/-
1/4th on the living and personal expenses
of the deceased
Loss of dependency on taking a 11,66,400/-
multiplier of 16
Future prospect @ 40% Rs.4,66,560/-
Conventional head Rs.84000/-
Total Rs.17,16,960/-
10. Insurance Company is directed to make full and final payment of the
compensation amount of Rs.17,16,960/- with interest @ 6 % from the date of
filing of the claim application. Amount to be deposited within one month from
the date of order before the learned Tribunal and the amount shall be disbursed
by the Tribunal to the claimants as per the apportionment of share decided by
it. Insurance Company shall have right of recovery against the owner of the
vehicle.
11. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of
appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted to the final compensation
amount to be paid to the claimant.
Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Interlocutory
Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
