Branch Manager vs Nasrtullah S/O Ashalat Ali
2025 Latest Caselaw 2161 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Branch Manager vs Nasrtullah S/O Ashalat Ali on 30 January, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        M.A No. 255 of 2009
                                                    -----
            Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd. Sahibganj Branch, PO PS &
                Dist. Sahibganj                                        ... Appellants(s).
                                       Versus
            1. Nasrtullah s/o Ashalat Ali
            2. Ashalat Ali s/o Late Abdul Shaid
               Both r/o village Ishakpur, Naya Tola, PO Rahaspur, PS Pakur (M) Dist.
               Pakur (Resp. No.1 is minor and is being represented through his father
               respondent no.2 being natural guardian)
            3. Bidhan Chandra Trigunit s/o Bikash Chandra Trigunit r/o village Chotti
               Rajbari Pakur in front of Pakur Town PS Pakur(T) PO Pakur Dist. Pakur
                                                                 ... Opp. Party(s).

CORAM       : SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shivam Lath, Advocate .........

23 /30.01.2025:

1. The instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.08.2009 passed in MACT No. 8/2004 (S) whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has awarded interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the claimant no.1 under Section 140 of the MV Act and the liability to pay the compensation amount has been fixed on the appellant-

Insurance Company.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that MACT Case No. 8/04 (S) has been disposed of vide judgment dated 13.03.2007 by the Court of District Judge Cum Motor Vehicle Tribunal, Pakur. In the said judgment the liability to pay the compensation amount has been fixed on the owner of the vehicle. A definite finding has been recorded in para-36 that Insurance Company / present appellant was not at all liable to pay the compensation rather owner of the vehicle was liable to pay the said amount.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel that despite the final order the certificate proceeding which was initiated against the appellant in Case No. 286 of 2008 is still pending.

4. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle does not dispute the factual assertions. It is however, submitted that owner has died and legal heirs has not been impleaded.

5. In the present appeal, the final judgment rendered in MACT Case No.8/04(S) is not under challenge, rather the interim order has been assailed. It goes without saying that after passing of the final order, the interim order gets merged into the final order. In view of the final judgment passed, the liability shift to the owner from the insurer of the vehicle, and no execution proceeding can proceed for realization of the ad-interim compensation amount awarded directed to be paid by the insurer.

6. Under the circumstance the impugned order is set aside.

Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.

Statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal is permitted to be refunded to the appellant.

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

Anjali/-