Jharkhand High Court
Ramnath Mahto vs Prabha Devi on 22 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
M.A. No. 294 of 2022
----
1. Ramnath Mahto, aged about 49 years, son of Fekuwa Mahto
2. Basanti Devi, aged about 46 years, wife of Ramnath Mahto
Both resident of village - Akashi, PO - Akashi, PS - Bhandra,
District - Lohardaga, Jharkhand .... Appellants
-- Versus --
1. Prabha Devi, wife of Umesh Sao, resident of Kairo, PO and PS -
Kairo, District - Lohardaga, Jharkhand - 835302
2. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited
i.e. Motor Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.1794, 2nd Floor,
Ashirwad Mansion, Main Road, PO - GPO Ranchi, PS - Daily Market,
Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834001 .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellants :- Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
----
06/22.01.2025 Heard learned counsels appearing for the appellants and learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 29.09.2022
passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.63 of 2017 by learned Principal
District Judge-cum-P.O. MACT, Lohardaga.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the
compensation case was filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 by one Ramnath Mahto and his wife Basanti Devi against the
opposite parties. He submits that the accident took place on 28.10.2017
and one Suraju Mahto died in the said accident at around 07:00 PM at
village Kota More within Bhandra Police Station. He further submits that
the injured was being taken to RIMS, Ranchi for his treatment, however,
he was died on way to RIMS, Ranchi itself. He submits that the said
Suraju Mahto was an employee of opposite party No.1 and his age was
19 years. He further submits that Suraju Mahto was engaged by Prabha
Devi (OP No.1) to drive her motorcycle and while riding on the said
motorcycle the said accident took place. He submits that the learned
Court has wrongly dismissed the claim application on the ground that the
deceased was not having the driving license. He further submits that the
appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5 lacs in light of second
amendment of 2019 under Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act. According
to him, the PA cover was there and if such a situation is there the driver
can step into the shoe of the owner, as such he is entitled for at least
Rs.1 lakh with interest of 7.5 per cent. On this ground, he submits that
the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, who is the
owner submits that the owner has not appeared before the Tribunal and
the said order is ex-parte. He submits that the deceased was employed
by the owner and he was driving the motorcycle. He submits that the
learned Court has found the said driving license as fake one.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - Insurance
company submits that so far the argument with regard to second
amendment of 2019 under Section 164 Motor Vehicles Act is concerned
that will not apply, so far the appellants are concerned as accident took
place in the year 2017 and that amendment has come in the year 2019.
He further submits that the compulsory PA cover of owner/driver is paid
of Rs.50 will not apply, so far the appellants are concerned and unnamed
driver it is not paid.
6. It is an admitted position that the accident took place and one
Suraju Mahto has left for his heavenly abode due to that accident, so far
driving license is concerned issue No.4 was framed by the learned Court
and while deciding the issue No.4 the learned Court has found that
Exhibit-A is letter of DTO, Hazaribagh whereby it is disclosed that the said
driving license was not issued in favour of the deceased Suraju Mahto.
The photocopy of the driving license has been submitted by the
claimant's side which has been marked as Exhibit-X/4. The license
number is disclosed in the said photocopy of the driving license, however,
in light of Exhibit-A the Court has come to the conclusion that the driving
license was a fake one. Thus, the argument of learned counsel appearing
for the appellants with regard to the driving license is not tenable as
there is clear cut finding on the issue in question.
7. Accident took place in the year 2017 and second amendment
under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been made effected
from 01.04.2022. Thus, that amendment is also not helping the plaintiff
with regard to the argument of learned counsel appearing for the
appellants for the compensation of Rs.5 lacs that has been considered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and Another versus
United India Insurance Company and Another reported in
(2020) 2 SCC 550 wherein, at paragraph No.9.8, it has been held as
under:-
9.8 However, at the same time, even as per the
contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the
ownerdriver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore,
the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in
the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1
lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is
the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is
an amendment to the 2 nd Schedule and a fixed amount
of Rs.5 lakh has been specified in case of death and
therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5 lakh. The
same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the
accident took place in the year 2006 and even the
Judgment and Award was passed by the learned Tribunal
in the year 2009, and the impugned Judgment and Order
has been passed by the High Court in 10.05.2018, i.e.
much prior to the amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the
facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants
shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to
the 2 nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed
hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh
as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver
being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle.
8. So far PA cover is concerned the certified copy has been
produced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants which was
also examined by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1
and 2 wherein it is disclosed that the PA cover of owner and driver of
Rs.50 has been paid and if such a situation is there then certainly the
deceased entered into the shoes of the owner and in light of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and
Another (supra) the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1 lac as per
the contract of insurance with the statutory interest of 7.5 per cent.
9. Accordingly, the insurance company is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.1 lac along with statutory interest of 7.5 per cent to the appellants
within six weeks.
10. The award dated 29.09.2022 passed in Motor Accident Claim
Case No.63 of 2017 by learned Principal District Judge-cum-P.O. MACT,
Lohardaga is modified to the above extent and this appeal is disposed of
in above terms.
11. Since the amount is very meagre and the owner is said to be a
lady and right of recovery has not been decided by the learned Tribunal,
as such the order of right of recovery to the insurance company is not
being passed by this Court. However, this part of the order will not be a
precedent as it has been passed considering the amount of compensation
is meagre.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
