Jharkhand High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch ... vs Karuna Devi Wife Of Late Thakur Prasad on 4 March, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.261 of 2012
------
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, P.O.
& P.S. Bistupur, District Singhbhum East .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Karuna Devi wife of Late Thakur Prasad
2. Sushma Rani wife of Late Thakur Sheo Prakash Narayan
3. Mithilesh Kumar son of Late Thakur Sheo Prakash Narayan
4. Vinita Kumari daughter of Late Thakur Sheo Prakash Narayan
5. Sumita Kumari daughter of Late Thakur Sheo Prakash Narayan
All residing at Village Dhangi, P.O. Rowam via Katrasgarh, P.S.
Topchanchi, District Dhanbad at present residing at C/o Prem Prakash,
Chuna Bhatta, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Town & District Ranchi
6. Asso Paul @ Asshu Paul son of Daeniel Paul House No.123, Zone No.5,
P.O. & P.S. Birshanagar, Telco, Jamshedpur
7. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office
No.1, Kutchery Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O., Town and District Ranchi
8. Yakub Paul son of Danieal Paul, Birsa Nagar, Qr. No.123, Zone 5, P.O. &
P.S. Birsanagar, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
.... .... .... Respondents
With
1. Mrs. Karuna Devi wife of Late Thakur Prasad
2. Mrs. Sushma Rani wife of Late Thakur Sheo Prakash Narayan
3. Mithilesh Kumar son of Late Thakur Sheo Prakash Narayan
4. Miss Vinita Kumari daughter of Late Thakur Sheo Prakash Narayan
5. Miss Sumita Kumari daughter of Late Thakur Sheo Prakash Narayan
All permanent resident of Village Dhangi, P.O. Rowan via Katrasgarh, P.S.
Topchanchi, District Dhanbad at present residing at C/o Prem Prakash,
Chuna Bhatta, Kokar, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Town & District Ranchi
.... .... .... Cross Objector
Versus
1. Asso Paul @ Asshu Paul son of Mr. Daeniel Paul House No.123, Zone
No.5, Birsanagar, TELCO, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Telco, District East
Singhbhum
2. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office,
Hindustan Building, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, P.S. Bistupur, P.O.
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum through The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No.1, Kutchery Road, P.S.
Kotwali, P.O. and District Ranchi
3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Bistupur,
Jamshedpur, P.S. Bistupur, P.O.Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
4. Yakub Paul son of Danieal Paul, House No.123, Zone 5, P.O. & P.S.
Birsanagar, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
(In M.A. No.261 of 2012)
Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Lath, Advocate
(In C.O. No.02 of 2021)
For the Respondents/Claimants: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
(In M.A. No.261 of 2012)
For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In M.A. No.261 of 2012)
------
Order No12 / Dated : 04.03.2025
Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation in Compensation Case No.35(T)/2001 whereby and
whereunder the liability to pay compensation amount has been fixed on the
appellant-Insurance Company and Oriental Insurance Company Limited
(respondent no.7) for paying compensation amount in equal share to the
claimants. Cross Objection has been preferred by the claimants for
enhancement of compensation amount.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant-Insurance
Company, Mr. Alok Lal that Cross Objection is not maintainable in view of
the fact that it is hopelessly barred by limitation under Order XLI Rule 22 of
the CPC. The Cross Objection can be filed only within one month after filing
of the appeal, but this is a case where it has been filed after nine years
without filing any petition for condonation of delay.
3. With regard to the appeal preferred by the United India Insurance
Company, it is submitted that admittedly, the accident took place on
11.06.2001 at 6:15 p.m. Certified copy of Insurance Policy (Exhibit A/1) was
effective from 01.06.2001 to 31.05.2002. The premium was paid by cheque,
but it was dishonored on 05.06.2001 for insufficiency of fund. As per Exhibit
C which is the cheque return memo issued by the Bank of India, the policy
was cancelled on 08.06.2001 (Exhibit D) and the intimation regarding
cancellation of policy was sent by registered post. The letter of cancellation
dated 11.06.2001 has been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit E
which cancelled the policy of insurance with effect from the date of policy of
insurance i.e. 01.06.2001. Thus, on the date of accident, the offending vehicle
was not under insurance cover of the appellant-Company. In the absence of
Insurance Policy, it is urged that the learned Tribunal was at error to have
awarded compensation fixing liability by appellant-Company. In any case, if
the vehicle was under cover of Insurance Company, there was no occasion
for the owner to have purchased any policy w.e.f. 17:00 hours on 11.06.2001
from Oriental Insurance Company Limited (respondent no.7).
4. Learned counsel, Mr. Sanjay Kumar on behalf of respondent no.6
submits that the learned Tribunal has recorded specific reasons for not
accepting the plea of the appellant- Insurance Company that the order of
cancellation was intimated to the owner of vehicle at the time of accident. In
any case, the letter of cancellation has been issued on 11.06.2001, which is
after the date of accident and even if it is assumed that it was dispatched by
the registered post, it could not have reached the owner of vehicle on the
very same day. In this view of matter, since cancellation was not intimated,
the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation fixing joint liability on
appellant- Insurance Company in view of the ratio laid downy in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmamma & Others, 2012 (3) TAC 8 SC.
5. Learned counsel on behalf of claimants submits that there is
admittedly delay in preferring Cross Objection, but considering the
provision under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act that, a just
compensation is to be awarded even if any objection is preferred, the delay
has to be considered liberally. Even if Cross Objection is not filed, there is
mandate to award the compensation as per settled law.
6. It is submitted that claimant no.1 is an old and firm lady aged about
90 years therefore, compensation be paid in the name of widow and not in
the name of claimants.
7. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and
the materials on record, I find merit in the argument advanced on behalf the
claimants that the delay in filing cross-examination cannot be a ground to
deny just compensation to the claimants. The deceased was admittedly 40
years of age at the time of accident and was in Government service with
annual income assessed by the learned Tribunal Rs.1,08,888/- and making
deduction to 1/4th as living expenses of the deceased with future prospect of
30%, conventional head 84,000/-, the final compensation will work out as
under: -
Annual Income Rs.1,08,888/-
Annual dependency after deducting Rs.81,666/-
1/4th on the living and personal expenses
of the deceased
Loss of dependency on taking a Rs.12,24,990/-
multiplier of 15
Future prospect @ 30% Rs. 3,67,497/-
Conventional head Rs.84,000/-
Total Rs.16,76,487/-
8. So far, the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, it is not
in dispute that the premium was paid by cheque to United India Insurance
Company Ltd, but it was dishonored on 05.06.2001 for insufficiency of fund.
As per Exhibit C which is the cheque return memo issued by the Bank of
India, the policy was cancelled on 08.06.2001 (Exhibit D) and the intimation
regarding cancellation of policy was sent by registered post. The letter of
cancellation dated 11.06.2001 has been adduced into evidence and marked as
Exhibit E which cancelled the policy of insurance with effect from the date of
policy of insurance i.e. 01.06.2001. Thus, on the date of accident, the
offending vehicle was not under insurance cover of the appellant-Company.
As per the case of the owner of the vehicle, he had applied and taken
insurance from Oriental Insurance Company goes to show that appellant
had intimation about the cancellation of the policy for non-payment of the
premium amount. Therefore, Untied India Insurance Company shall not be
liable to pay the compensation amount.
9. Since the offending vehicle was under the insurance cover of
Oriental Insurance Company, vide certificate insurance policy (Exhibit A)
effective from 17 hours on 11.06.2001 till 10.06.2002, at the relevant time of
time of accident, therefore the plea of nonservice of cancellation letter by the
previous insurer to the owner of the vehicle is not available to it, which is
the subsequent insurer of the vehicle. Cover note is of 10.06.2001, a day
before the date of accident. The argument advanced made by learned
counsel, Sri G.C Jha on discount is therefore, not accepted.
10. Under the circumstance, Oriental Insurance Company shall be
liable make full and final payment of the compensation amount of
Rs.16,76,487/-with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing of the claim
application. Amount to be deposited within one month from the date of
order before the learned Tribunal and the amount shall be disbursed by the
Tribunal to the claimants as per the apportionment of share decided by it.
Insurance Company shall have right of recovery against the owner of the
vehicle.
11. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of
appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted to the final
compensation amount to be paid to the claimant.
Miscellaneous Appeal and cross-objections are accordingly
allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
