Jharkhand High Court
Managing Director vs Khushboo Bharti on 12 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
M.A. No.169 of 2022
----
Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through
Deoghar Branch Manager, Prabha Hotel, Complex, Aasham Axeses Road
Near Mothersa School, Deoghar Through Manju Singh, Authorized
Signatory, Divisional Office (Third Party Claim Hub) Ranchi, Vyapar
Bhawan, Floor No.1, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi, PO Ranchi, PS Daily Market,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand ........ Appellant/Principal Defendant No.1
-- Versus --
1.Khushboo Bharti, D/o late Jivan Das, C/o Ansuman Kumar, R/o Mohalla-
Belabagan, P.O. and P.S Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand - 814116
..... Respondent No.1/ Claimant
2.Ranjeet Kumar, s/o Ram Narayan Choudhary, R/o Sikandarpur, PO
Sikandarpur, S.O., PS Muzaffarpur, Town, District Muzaffarpur, Bihar
842001 .... [Owner of Vehicle] .... Respondent No.2/Opposite party No.2
3.Managing Director, National Insurance Company Ltd., Through Deoghar
Branch Manager, VIP Chowk, Court Road, Deoghar, PO Deoghar, PS
Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand
.... [Insurer of Other Vehicle] ....... Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
[Claimant]
For the Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Niraj Nayan Mishra, Advocate
----
7/12.03.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1[claimant] and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/ Insurance Company.
2. Notice upon respondent no.2 who is the owner has already been effected
and in spite of that, he has chosen not to appear.
3. The present appeal has been preferred against the Award Dated
14.06.2022 passed in Motor Accident Claim No.48 of 2017 by learned District
Judge-II-cum-MACT-II at Deoghar.
4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that the first ground is that the multiplier has wrongly been
used at 12 in place of 11, in light of the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) And
Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121 as the Date of Birth as disclosed in the Driving License of the
deceased was said to be 13.02.1962 and he had already attained the age of 54
years at the time of accident. He further submits that the another ground is for
the right of recovery on the ground that the vehicle in question was not having
the permit which is necessary in light of section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. On this ground, he submits that the present appeal may kindly be
allowed.
5. Mr. Yadav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
no.1/ claimant opposed the prayer on the ground that the learned court has
rightly applied the multiplier. He submits that he is nothing to do with the
recovery part and it is for the owner to argue the matter.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3/ National
Insurance Company Limited submits that the Insurance Company was the
insurer of the motor-cycle which was being driven by the deceased, however,
the liability has been fastened upon the Truck on the point of negligence.
7. From the Award, it transpires that the said claim case has been preferred
by the claimant for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on the death of Dr. Jivan
Das who died in a road accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the Truck Bearing Reg.No.BR 06GC 1742 in which Dr. Jivan Das was crushed
under the wheels of the Truck. An FIR bearing No.91/2015 P.S. Jasidih was
registered in that regard.
8. The learned Tribunal has framed the issues and has decided the claim
and has directed to pay a sum of Rs.49,33,250/- along with interest @ 7.5 %
per annum and in view of the multiplier, it has been applied to 12. In the case
of Sarla Verma (Smt.) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And
Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 in paragraph no.42, it has been held
as under:
"42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the
age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one
unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16
for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units
for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56
to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
9. In view of the above judgment considering that the age of the deceased
was between 15 to 55 years and in view of that, the multiplier 11 is required to
be applied.
10. As such, the Award Dated 14.06.2022 passed in Morot Accident Claim
No.48 of 2017 by learned District Judge-II-cum-MACT-II at Deoghar is, hereby,
modified to the effect that, the multiplier will be 11, in place of 12.
11. In paragraph no.6.3, the finding is there that the said Truck was running
without a valid permit and in view of section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988,
the Permit is necessary. A reference to the case of Pappu And Others v.
Vinod Kumar Lamba And Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208.
12. In view of the above and considering that the finding of the learned
Tribunal is there of not having permit, a right of recovery should be there in
favour of the Insurance Company, and as such, the Insurance Company, after
satisfying the Award, is provided liberty to pay and recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle in question.
13. The Award is modified to the above extent, and M.A. No.169 of 2022 is
allowed in part, in the above terms, and disposed of.
14. Statutory amount deposited before this Court, will be remitted back to
the learned Tribunal which will be utilized in satisfying the rest of the Award as
in course of argument it has been argued that the awarded amount is paid.
15. In view of above, the calculation will be made and further amount, if any,
will be paid to the claimant, and after satisfying the award, if any amount
remains, that will be paid to the Insurance Company.
16. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the learned court concerned
forthwith.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
