Jharkhand High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Girija Devi on 16 January, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 519 of 2016
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Sector IV, Bokaro, nearest Branch office,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Godda represented through its Sr. Divisional
Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi.
.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Girija Devi
2.Mahtab Hussain
3.Md. Jahangir Ansari .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate
For the Resp./Claimants : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
......
12/ 16.01.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. Although notice was validly served upon Respondent Nos.2 and 3, but nobody
has appeared on their behalf.
2. The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred against the judgment/ Award dated
02.06.2016 passed by learned District Judge-IV cum MACT, Godda in MACT
No.08 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.2,29,515/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the
claim application to the claimant(s)/respondent(s) payable within 90 days from
the date of judgment/Award, failing which, penal interest @9% per annum shall
be payable after expiry of the period of payment till realization for the grievous
injury sustained by the claimant /respondent no.1 in the motor vehicle accident
occurred in the offending vehicle, a tempo bearing Registration No.JH 17E-2710
with another vehicle, Tata Magic having Registration No.JH 17E-4488.
3. As per the case of the claimant, she was travelling on a Tempo bearing
registration number JH17E/2710 on 08.06.2013 which was being driven rashly
and negligently and met with an accident with Tata Magic having Registration
No.JH 17E-4488.
4. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimant, aged about 58 years had
sustained 80% permanent disability in the said accident and by taking her income
to be Rs.3,000/- per month as her income, compensation was computed.
5. The instant Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the Tempo was
being driven without any valid permit and the driver of the vehicle was not
having any valid licence, but no right of recovery has been given to the appellant
Insurance Company against the owner of the vehicle.
6. In order to buttress the plea of breach of term and condition of the insurance
policy, reliance is placed on Ext.A which is report submitted by the Investigator
of the Company. As per this report there was no driving licence and the vehicle
was being plied without having any permit.
7. It has been further argued that there is no provision of penal interest and as per
the judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corp. & Anr, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121, the rate of interest has been held as
6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of its realization.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant(s)/ respondent (s) raises no objection
to the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant as the quantum of
compensation has not been assailed.
9. From the submissions advanced it is manifest that the quantum of compensation
is not under challenge. The sole point for determination is whether the Insurance
Company is entitled to get right of recovery from the owner of the vehicle, for
breach of the terms of insurance policy.
10. As far as the licence is concerned, from perusal of Ext.A (adduced on behalf of
the Insurance Company), it is evident that the driver was having a valid driving
licence. On the further plea that, he was not having a valid licence for driving a
commercial vehicle, it was incumbent on the part of the Insurance Company to
have adduced evidence by producing relevant documents from the licensing
authority. In absence of any such evidence and only on the basis of the report of
the investigator, no finding can be recorded in this regard that the driver was not
having valid licence for the said vehicle.
11. With regard to the plea of the vehicle was not having permit, except for the
investigator's report there is no other evidence in support of it except that of the
investigator's report (Exhibit A) although he was not examined. In the absence
of any other documentary evidence issued by competent authority to substantiate
the plea that the vehicle was being driven without any valid permit, a finding
cannot be recorded in this regard only on the basis of the report of the
investigator.
12. Under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned Award
passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant- Insurance
Company that the vehicle was driving without having permit.
13. The judgment of compensation is affirmed with interest @6% per annum from
the date of filing of claim application till its realization. The penal interest of 9%
as awarded is set aside.
14. Accordingly, the instant Misc. Appeal stands dismissed.
15. The statutory amount deposited on behalf of the Insurance Company at the time
of filing of the instant Misc. Appeal be remitted to the learned Tribunal which
can be adjusted against the final Award /compensation.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
