Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Kamala Devi @ Kamala Rani Singha Roy vs M/S Prakash Construction Company on 3 March, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 231 of 2016
1. Smt. Kamala Devi @ Kamala Rani Singha Roy, W/o Late Manindra
Nath Singha Roy
2. Shreya Singha Roy (minor), D/o Late Suvabroto Singha Roy
Both R/o C/o Smt. Indrani Ghosh, Qr. No.C-III/82, Karmik Nagar, P.O. &
P.S. Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad and appellant No.2 being Minor
represented by her Natural Guardian being grand-mother i.e. appellant
no.1 .... .... ....
Appellants
Versus
1. M/s Prakash Construction Company, Sardar Society, Visnagar,
District- Mehsana, Gujarat, PIN 384002.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Mehsana Divisional Office, 1st
Floor, Vijay Chambers, State High Way, Mehsana, District- Mehsana,
Gujarat. .... .... .... Respondents
With
Misc. Appeal No. 225 of 2016
National Insurance Company Limited, Mehsana Divisional Office, 1st
Floor, Vijay Chambers, State High Way, Mehsana, District- Mehsana,
Gujarat. .... .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Kamala Devi @ Kamala Rani Singha Roy, W/o Late Manindra Nath
Singha Roy
2. Shreya Singha Roy (minor), D/o Late Suvabroto Singha Roy
Both R/o C/o Smt. Indrani Ghosh, Qr. No.C-III/82, Karmik Nagar, P.O.
ISM, P.S. Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad and appellant No.2 being Minor
represented by her Natural Guardian being grand-mother i.e. appellant
no.1 .... .... .... Respondents
With
Misc. Appeal No.86 of 2017
1. Kamala Rani Singharay @ Kamala Devi, W/o Late Manindra
Singharay
2. Shreya Singharay (minor), D/o Late Suvotroto Singharay
Both R/o C/o Smt. Indrani Ghosh, Qr. No.C-III/82, Karmik Nagar, P.O.
ISM, P.S. Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad and appellant No.2 being Minor
represented by her Natural Guardian being grand- mother i.e. appellant
no.1 .... .... .... Appellants
Versus
1.M/s Prakash Construction Co., Sardar Society, Visnagar, District-
Mehsana, Gujarat, PIN 384002.
2.The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, Dhanbad, B. P. Agarwalal Building, Dhansar, Dhanbad.
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Karbir, Advocate
Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp.(s)/I.C. : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Res.-Owner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
......
15/ 03.03.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. All these three appeals arise out of judgments passed in Title (M.V.) Suit
No. 187 of 2005 and Title (M.V.) Suit No. 168 of 2014. Since both these
claim cases arise out of the same accident, therefore, they are heard
together and disposed of by common order.
2. 10.4.2005 was the fateful day when the accident took place between
Maruti Car No. UMC 4670 and Dumper bearing registration no. GJ-2Y-
4205 in which the occupants of the maruti car, namely, Suvabrato Singha
Roy his wife Koravi Singha Roy and one relative Pumpa Roy died.
Daughter of Suvabrato Singha Roy, namely, Shreya Singha Roy who was
a minor had a providential escape.
3. Title (M.V.) Suit No. 187 of 2005 was filed by Kamala Devi @ Kamala Rani
Singha Roy, the mother of Suvabrato Singha Roy along with her minor
grand- daughter Shreya Singha Roy under section 166 of the M.V. Act for
compensation for the death of Suvabrato Singha Roy and separate claim
case being Title (M.V.) Suit No. 168 of 2014 was filed for the death of
Koravi Singha Roy.
4. In Title (M.V.) Suit No. 187 of 2005 a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh 18
Thousand along with interest @ 6% from the date of passing of the order
was allowed in favour of the claimants for the death of Koravi Singha Roy
and no order was passed with respect to the death of Suvabrato Singha
Roy.
5. Title (M.V.) Suit No. 168 of 2014 filed for claim against the death of Koravi
Singh Roy, was held to be not maintainable in view of the judgment passed
in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 187 of 2005 and MA No. 86 of 2017 has been filed
against this order.
6. MA No. 231 of 2016 has been filed against the rejection of the claim
application with respect to the death of Suvabrato Singha Roy by the
claimants and MA No. 225 of 2016 has been preferred by the National
Insurance Company against the award of compensation in Title (M.V.) Suit
No.187 of 2005.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the claimant in MA No. 231 of 2016
and MA No. 225 of 2016, and rightly so that it was an error of record on
the part of the tribunal to have allowed the claim application with respect
to Koravi Singha Roy.
8. Further, the Tribunal completely ignored other evidences on record while
rejecting the claim application for the death with respect to Suvabrato
Singha Roy, only on the ground that post-mortem examination report of
the deceased Suvabrato Singha Roy was not produced.
9. The accident took place on 10.4.2005 and immediately thereafter FIR
being Barun PS Case No. 49 of 2005 (Ext.4) was lodged on 10.4.2005
under sections 279,304(A) IPC against the driver of the Dumper bearing
no. GJ-2Y-4205. After investigation, charge-sheet (Ext.-5) was submitted
against the driver of the offending vehicle for causing death in the motor
vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving. It has come in the fard-
beyan that Suvabrato Singha Roy had sustained fatal injury and died in the
accident. The Xerox copy of the Inquest Report [Ext.7] was also filed with
regard to inquest report of Suvabrato Singha Roy. Furthermore, the
defendants nowhere disputed the death of Suvabrato Singha Roy in the
accident. There has not been any cross-examination on the point on which
PW-1 to PW-5 have supported the case of the claimants regarding
accidental death of Suvabrato Singha Roy.
10. Under the circumstance, I find force in the argument advanced on behalf
of the appellants that the tribunal committed an error in rejecting the claim
application only on the ground that the post-mortem examination report of
Suvabrato Singha Roy was not adduced in evidence. Claim cases are not
criminal trial, they are in the form of inquiry where the facts are to be proved
on the basis of preponderance of probability. The finding of Issue No.3
regarding accidental death of Suvabrato Singha Roy by tribunal is not
sustainable and is answered in favour of the defendants.
11. So far claimants, Kamala Devi @ Kamala Devi Singha Roy and anr. in M.
A. No.231 of 2016 [Title (M.V) Suit No.187 of 2005] is concerned, it is
argued by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, and
rightly so, that the impugned Award of compensation in favour of the
claimant(s) for the death of deceased (Karabi @ Koravi Singharay) in M.
A. No.231 of 2016 [Title (M.V) Suit No.187 of 2005] was an error of record,
as in the said claim case, death of deceased (Karabi @ Koravi Singharay)
was not an issue as it was filed by the claimant(s) for the death of deceased
(Suvabrato Singha Roy).
12. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance
company that the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that there was
no fault with regard to Driving licence produced or the permit, therefore,
there was breach of the insurance policy and as such, right of recovery has
been given against the owner of the offending vehicle. However, it is
contended that as a matter of fact, there was no policy on the said date of
accident as the cheque that was presented before the Banker for payment
of premium to the Insurance Company, was dishonoured due to
insufficient fund and subsequently it was cancelled.
13. It is also argued that this is a case where the learned Tribunal has
committed an error of record, therefore, for the ends of justice, this case
needs to be remanded to the learned Tribunal so that the Insurance
Company will have right to plead and lead evidence with regard to income
of deceased (Suvabrato Singha Roy) .
14. So far the argument advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that
in view of the error of record committed by the learned Tribunal, this is a
case where the accident took place almost two decades ago on
10.04.2005 and the claim was finally decided in the year 2015. At this
stage, it will not serve the ends of justice to remand the case to the
Tribunal. Furthe, this Court has ample power to adjudicate on the issues
raised under Order 41 R-23 A and 24 of the CPC.
15. So far the defence of the Insurance Company is concerned, they had
ample opportunity at the stage of the enquiry by the Tribunal to plead and
lead evidence against the claim case preferred by claimant(s) with
respect to death of deceased (Suvabrato Singha Roy) and on the basis
of the pleadings and evidence, the claim will be decided by this Court
which is acting as the First Court of Appeal.
16. There is blatant error on the part of the Tribunal in awarding
compensation for the death of deceased (Karabi @ Koravi Singharay) in
Title (M.V) Suit No.187 of 2005, therefore, the order/ judgment passed in
this case being not sustainable is set aside.
17. Claimants are entitled to get compensation in Title (M.V) Suit No.187 of
2005, for the death of deceased (Suvabrato Singha Roy), who was aged
about 40 years at the time of accident. Salary certificate and employment
agreement letter issued in favour of the deceased (Suvabrato Singha
Roy) from EXL Service and Pay Slip have been adduced into evidence
and marked as Ext.1 to 3, from which it can be concluded that the monthly
income of the deceased (Suvabrato Singha Roy) at the time of accident
was to be Rs.19,389/-. The deceased left behind two claimants/
dependents. Finally, the compensation will work out as under :-
Annual income of the Rs.19,389/-X 12 = Rs.2,32,668/-
deceased taking Rs.2,32,668/- + 30%
+Rs.69,800.4/-
Rs.19,389/- as of Rs.2,32,668/- as
monthly income + Future prospect =Rs.3,02,468.2/=
30% as Future
prospect
Annual Dependency Rs.3,02,468.2/- Minus = Rs.2,01,645.78
after deducting 1/3rd Rs.1,00,822.73/-
Multiplier taking 40 15 Rs.2,01,645.78 X 15
years as the age of =
the deceased at the Rs.30,24,685.50/-
time of the accident
Loss of Estate, Rs.84,000/- Rs.84,000/-
Funeral Expenses
and Loss of
Consortium
Total Rs.31,08,685.50/-
18. So far the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the Insurance
Company has adduced in evidence i.e. Ext.A to K from which it appears
that the Insurance Policy No.170300/31/15/6300003931 was issued on
the basis of Cheque No.95100 amounting to Rs.37,174/- deposited on
02.04.2005. As per the written statement and Ext.D, Bank of India
returned the same vide Memo dated 12.04.2005 regarding dishonour of
the cheque for insufficiency of the fund for which the letter was issued by
the National Insurance Company Limited regarding cancellation of the
Insurance Policy (Ext.F) on 18.04.2005. As such, these evidences go on
to show that when the accident took place on 10.04.2005 and by that
time, the Insurance policy was not cancelled and, therefore, the vehicle
was under the insurance cover by the National Insurance Company
Limited, as such,, there is no error so far fixing the liability and also right
to recovery is concerned.
19. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation
amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application till its realization to the claimants in Title
(M.V) Suit No.187 of 2005, for the death of Suvrato Sinhga Roy. The
payment shall be made within a month from the date of this order by the
Insurance Company to the learned Tribunal and thereafter the Tribunal
will disburse the same as per the terms fixed by it to the claimants within
two weeks.
20. M. A. No.231 of 2016 is allowed.
21. Further, M.A. No.225 of 2016 stands disposed of.
22. Registry is directed to remit the statutory amount, if any deposited by the
Insurance Company to the Tribunal, at the time of preferring the Misc.
Appeal so as to adjust /disburse to the claimant(s).
23. The aforesaid Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the claimant(s) for
enhancement of the compensation as awarded in Title (M.V.) Suit No.
168 of 2014 for the death of deceased (Karabi @ Koravi Singharay) in
the motor vehicle accident.
24. It is argued by learned counsel for the owner/ Respondent No.1 that the
driver was not the party before the learned Tribunal, but the learned
Tribunal has wrongly recorded in the judgment at Para-9 that the owner
had not appeared in this case.
25. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the claimants that the
claim was not dismissed on merits rather it was dismissed for the reason
that in Title (M.V) Suit No.187 of 2005, learned Tribunal instead of
allowing claim with respect to death of deceased (Suvabrato Singha Roy)
had allowed the claim of the claimants with respect to the deceased
(Karabi @ Koravi Singharay.
26. It is argued that the deceased was aged about 30 years as Ext.5 (Post-
mortem examination report) and she was a home maker and in view of
the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh vs.
National Assurance Company Ltd. (2020) 7 SCC 256 final
compensation amount is awarded taking Rs.5,000/- as monthly income,
40% future prospect and Rs.84,000/- as loss of consortium and the final
compensation amount will work out as under :-
Annual income of the Rs.5,000/- X 12 = = Rs.84,000/-
deceased taking Rs.60,000/- +
Rs.5,000/- as monthly Rs.24,000/- [ 40% of
income + 40% as Rs.60,000 as Future
Future prospect prospect]
Annual Dependency Rs.84,000/- Minus = Rs.56,000/-
after deducting 1/3rd Rs.28,000/-
Multiplier taking 30 17 Rs.56,000/- X
years as the age of 17=Rs.9,52,000/-
the deceased at the
time of the accident
Loss of Estate, Rs.84,000/- Rs.84,000/-
Funeral Expenses
and Loss of
Consortium
Total Rs.10,36,000/-
27. The Respondent- Insurance Company is liable to pay the aforesaid
compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. The payment
shall be made within a month from the date of this order by the Insurance
Company to the learned Tribunal and thereafter the Tribunal will disburse
the same as per the terms fixed to the claimants within two weeks.
28. It goes without saying that the amount already paid shall be deducted in
final compensation amount.
Misc. Appeal No.86 of 2017 is accordingly, allowed.
Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
