Jharkhand High Court
Manager vs Mousami Majumdar on 29 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 355 of 2023
Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, having its office
Kedar Bhawan, 3rd Floor, S.P. Verma Road, Patna, Bihar, P.O. & P.S. Patna,
District- Patna ... Appellant
-Versus-
1. Mousami Majumdar, wife of Late Prabir Majumdar
2. Gaurav Majumdar, son of Late Prabir Majumdar
Both residents of House No.151, J.C. Mallick Road, Hirapur, P.O. Hirapur,
P.S. & District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
3. Abid Jamir, son of Jamruddin Khan, resident of Bhaga Bazaar, P.O. & P.S.
Jharia, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents :
-----
04/29.01.2025 I.A. No.11450 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 3
days in preferring this appeal.
2. For the reasons assigned in the said I.A., the prayer made in the I.A.
is allowed and the delay of 3 days in preferring this appeal is, hereby,
condoned.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.11450 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.
4. Heard Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant.
5. This appeal is preferred against the judgment/award dated 28.06.2023
passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.174 of 2019 by the learned Principal
District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Dhanbad.
6. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
claimants preferred the said claim case under Sections 140 and 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act for grant of compensation of Rs.16,14,400/- against the
defendants. He then submits that it has been stated that on 23.09.2018 at
about 03:00 p.m., the deceased Prabir Mazumdar and his wife were travelling
by a I-10 car bearing No. JH-10AH-8338 and heading towards Dhanbad from
Kolkata and at about 07:00 p.m., when they reached Junglepur More, G.T.
Road, P.S. Govindpur, a truck bearing No. HR-37B-4731 being driven rashly
and negligently by its driver, suddenly applied brake due to which I-10 car
dashed against the truck as a result deceased, who was sitting in front seat
of car, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. He further submits that
it has been disclosed that the deceased was a Manager under Bharat Service
Station, G.T. Road, Barwa More, P.S. Barwadda, Dhanbad and he was getting
Rs.19,500/- per month as a salary. He also submits that the said truck was
insured with the insurance company, namely, Shriram General Insurance
Company, which is the appellant in the present case. In this background, he
submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the offending truck
was being driven rashly and negligently and only on this ground, he submits
that this appeal may kindly be admitted.
7. Issue no. III was framed by the learned Tribunal with regard to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the truck.
P.W.1- Mousami Majumdar, wife of the deceased has stated in her evidence
that she along with her son have filed the said claim case for compensation
against the owner and insurer of truck no. HR-37B/4731. She has repeated
the same thing which has been hereinabove in the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant. She has further stated that truck no. HR-37B-4731
was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and he suddenly applied
brake due to which I-10 car dashed against the truck from behind resultantly
her husband sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. In cross-
examination, she has stated that at the time of accident she was travelling in
the same car and in the said accident one of the friends, namely, Rona Ghosh
also died.
8. P.W 2-Ashok Kumar Singh was examined as a partner of Bharat
Services Station, G.T. Road, Barwa More, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda,
Dhanbad. He has stated that the deceased was working in the Petrol Pump
for last 20 years and getting salary @ Rs. 19,500/- per month.
9. The FIR was marked as Ext.-1 and charge-sheet was marked as Ext.-2
and it was submitted against the driver, namely, Anil Prasad. Ext.-X was the
postmortem report.
10. In view of the above, a criminal proceeding was already placed on
record on completion of investigation of the police i.e. sufficient to prove
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In light of that,
the learned Tribunal has found that the truck was being driven rashly and
negligently. Further, the learned Tribunal has given right of recovery upon
the insurance company from the owner in its award. A cogent reason
based on the evidence on record, has been given by the learned Tribunal
in coming to the said finding with regard to the said issue and only that
issue has been raised in the present appeal for admitting the appeal.
Apart from that, no other ground has been argued on behalf of the
appellant.
11. In view of the above, the Court finds that there is no error in the award
of the learned Tribunal and, as such, this appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
12. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company will be
transmitted to the learned Tribunal, which will be utilized in certifying the
award in favour of the claimants.
13. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
