Jharkhand High Court
Legal Manager vs Abhishek Gope on 10 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 285 of 2023
Legal Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., office at 5th Floor,
Luv Kush Tower, Near Petrol Pump, Exhibition Road, P.O. Jamal Road,
P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Dis. Patna- 800001 through it's Legal Officer
Mohammad Imran, S/o Abul Kalam, aged about 38 years, r/o Luv Kush
Tower, P.O. Jamal Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Dist. Patna
... Appellant
-Versus-
1. Abhishek Gope, s/o Ghasinath Gope @ Nandkishor Gope,
2. Minor Alisha Gope, d/o Ghasinath Gope @ Nandkishor Gope
Respondent No.2 is being represented through her guardian brother
applicant No.1 Abhishek Gope
Both are resident of Village Ramchandrapur, P.O. Jagnnathpur, P.S.
Jagannathpur Jaintgarh, District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand
3. Kanta Devi, W/o Dhirajo Gope, resident of at P.O. & P.S. Jagannathpur,
District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand
4. Rajendra Prasad, S/o Muni Lal Prasad, resident of at Joda High School
Keonjhar, P.O. & P.S. Joda, District-Kendujhar, Odisha
... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate
For O.P. No.3 : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
-----
09/10.03.2025 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant,
Mr. Aditya Banerjee, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and
Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 08.06.2023
passed by the learned Principal District Judge cum Presiding Officer, Motor
Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Motor
Accident Claims Case No.12/2021.
3. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant-insurance company challenged the said award on the ground that
the identity of the deceased is not proved and in view of that, the claimants
are not entitled for compensation and secondly, he has raised issue that the
vehicle in question was running without any permit and, therefore, liability
cannot be fastened upon the insurance company.
4. Mr. Aditya Banerjee, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2
draws attention of the Court to paragraph 12 of the discussion made with
regard to the deceased in the judgment of the learned Tribunal and submits
that cogent finding has been given on that aspect. He further submits that so
far as Parivarik Suchi is concerned, the alias name of the deceased may not
be there, but the name of the father is disclosed and date of death is same
i.e. 11.01.2020.
5. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.3, who is the
owner of the said vehicle, submits that since the vehicle in question is
Mahindra Supro Mini Truck and its weight was 1850 Kgs and in light of Sub-
section (3)(i) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the permit is not
required. He further submits that before the learned Tribunal, the owner has
not been able to appear and in view of that, the case has been proceeded
against the owner ex-parte.
6. From the judgment of the learned Tribunal, it transpires that the said
compensation case was registered stating therein that on 11.01.2020 at about
12:00 p.m. deceased namely, Ghasi Nath Gope @ Nandkishor Gope
proceeded for Jagannathpur from village-Pokam traveling in offending vehicle
Mahindra Supro Pick-up bearing registration No. JH-06M-4648, at about
12:30 p.m. while he reached near 'Talab More' ahead to village - Todanghatu
the said vehicle turned over due to rash and negligent driving by its
driver resulted, deceased namely, Ghasi Nath Gope @ Nandkishor Gope
sustained injuries upon his person and moved to C.H.C., Jagannathpur by
the people nearby where he died during course of treatment. On the basis of
fardbayan of informant Abhishek Gope, son of the deceased formal FIR was
lodged for the offence u/s 279 and 304A of IPC against driver of the
alleged offending vehicle Mahindra Supro Pick-up bearing registration No.
JH-06M-4648. After investigation submitted charge sheet against the said
driver namely, Rajendra Prasad, who was driving the said vehicle. Postmortem
upon dead body of the deceased namely, Ghasi Nath Gope @ Nandkishor
Gope was conducted at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa on 11.01.2020. Appellant
nos. 1 and 2, who are son and daughter of the deceased had filed the claim
application before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation amount of
Rs. 12,90,000/-.
7. So far as the first point of the appellant-insurance company with regard
to identity of the deceased is concerned, it transpires that in the charge-sheet
the name of the deceased is disclosed as Ghasi Nath Gope @ Nandkishor
Gope. A.W.1, namely, Abhishek Gope has also disclosed the name of the
deceased as Ghasi Nath Gope @ Nandkishor Gope. Only on the basis of
Aadhar Card and Parivarik Suchi, where, alias name is not there, the said
dispute has been raised by the insurance company, but it is an admitted
position that in such accident, the insurance company appoints their own
investigator and the insurance company's investigator has not stated anything
on the identity of the deceased. In the Parivarik Suchi also, the date of
accident is same and the name of the petitioner is disclosed as Ghasi Nath
Gope.
8. Admittedly, Abhishek Gope who is the son of the deceased, has lodged
the FIR. The FIR, investigation and charge-sheet have not been challenged
by the insurance company at the earlier point of time and in view of that, the
finding of the learned Tribunal is correct one and the insurance company has
not been able to demolish the said finding and in view of the document, which
has been brought on record.
9. In the insurance policy, the weight of the vehicle is disclosed as 1850
Kgs. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act speaks of necessity for permits.
Sub-section (3)(i) of Section 66 of the said Act speaks that the provision of
sub-section (1) shall not apply on certain conditions and one of
the conditions is made as (i). Section 66(3)(i) of the said Act speaks as
under:
"66(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply--
--------------
66(3)(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of
which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms"
In view of the said provision, it is crystal clear that if the weight of the
vehicle is lesser than 3000 Kgs, permit is not required and in view of that, the
stand of the insurance company with regard to permit is also not tenable.
10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that
there is no illegality in the impugned award and, as such, this appeal is
dismissed.
11. Statutory amount deposited by the insurance company shall be
transmitted to the learned Tribunal which will be utilized in satisfying the
award in favour of the claimants and the award will be satisfied within eight
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
12. At this stage, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that so far as awarded amount is concerned, that has already been
deposited before the learned Tribunal.
13. In view of the above, after satisfying the award, if any amount remains
in balance, that will be returned back to the insurance company and if any
amount is needed, the insurance company will further deposit the amount
before the learned Tribunal.
14. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned Court forthwith.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
