Jharkhand High Court
Munija Khatun @ Sahneja Khatun W/O ... vs Ragini Kumari Singh on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
M.A. No. 686 of 2017
----
1. Munija Khatun @ Sahneja Khatun w/o Safique Mian
2. Md. Safique Mian, S/o Late Kashim Mian
3. Md. Shamsher S/o Md. Safique Mian
4. Md. Afsar Jilani s/o Md. Safique Mian
5. Kiyaulahaque son of Md. Safique Mian
6. Tamana Parveen minor daughter of Md. Safique Mian
Appellant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are minor sons and daughter of
appellant No.2 who is the natural guardian and represented the
All are resident of village - Rahmat Nagar, PO and PS -
Tandwa, District - Chatra .... Appellants
-- Versus --
1. Ragini Kumari Singh, w/o Shashi Ranjan, 15 Gaon Kumhar Toli,
Ashram Road, Hazaribagh, R/o village, PO and PS -
Hazaribagh, District - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Panisula Corporate
Park, Nicholas Pirmal Tower, 9th Floor, Ganpat Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai, 400013 .... Respondents
With
TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd, through its Dy.
Vice President & Zone Head - Claims, (Jayanta Kumar Roy, S/o
Dr. D.K. Roy), C/o - Constantia Office Complex, 2nd Floor, 11,
Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street, PO - Circus Avenue and PS -
Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700017 ..... Appellants
-- Versus --
1. Munija Khatun @ Sahneja Khatun w/o Safique Mian
2. Md. Safique Mian, S/o Late Kashim Mian
3. Md. Shamsher S/o Md. Safique Mian
4. Md. Afsar Jilani s/o Md. Safique Mian
5. Kiyaulahaque son of Md. Safique Mian
--1-- M.A. No. 686 of 2017 with M.A. No.08 of 2018
6. Tamana Parveen minor daughter of Md. Safique Mian
7. Ragini Kumari Singh, w/o Shashi Ranjan, Gaon Kumhar Toli,
Ashram Road, District - Chatra
Both Claimants/Applicants are resident of village - Rahmat
Nagar, PS - Tandwa, District - Chatra, Jharkhand
..... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellants :- Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents :- Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
----
14/01.05.2025 Heard Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company in M.A. No.686 of
2017 and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the claimants in M.A. No.08 of 2018.
2. Notice upon the respondent No.1 in M.A. No.686 of 2017,
who is said to be the owner, has already been effected and
opportunity was provided to further appear on 12.02.2025 and by
the said order the opportunity was further provided to the
respondent No.7, who is the owner in M.A. No.8 of 2018 and in
spite of providing opportunity, the owner has chosen not to appear
before the Court and in view of that these appeals are being heard
on merit in absence of owner.
3. M.A. No.686 of 2017 has been instituted by the claimants
challenging the award dated 07.09.2017 passed in Claim Case No.12
of 2012 by learned District Judge - IV-cum-Motor Accident Claim
--2-- M.A. No. 686 of 2017 with M.A. No.08 of 2018
Tribunal at Chatra.
4. M.A. No.8 of 2018 has been filed challenging the judgment
dated 07.09.2017 passed in M.A.C. Case No.12 of 2012 by the
insurance company.
5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
M.A. No.686 of 2017 submits that the learned Court has wrongly
assessed the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.4,500/- only
in place of Rs.6,000/-, however, the evidence to that effect has
been led. He further submits that the future prospect has not been
provided by the learned Tribunal and consortium has also not been
provided and only a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded for funeral
expenses. He then submits that the interest is only granted to the
tune of 6%, however, penal interest is said to be 8% in the said
award. On this background, he submits that the amount may kindly
be enhanced.
6. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the
insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly
passed the award and challenge to that effect is made in M.A.08 of
2017 by the insurance company and the appellant is not entitled for
any amount in view of the fact that he was travelling on the roof of
the bus and in view of that the deceased himself was negligent. He
further submits that if any wrong has been done by the owner of
the vehicle in question, the liability cannot be fastened upon the
insurance company and in view of that if such a situation is there at
least the Tribunal was ought to give the liberty to the insurance
--3-- M.A. No. 686 of 2017 with M.A. No.08 of 2018
company to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle in
question. He further submits that the driver of the bus was not
having the proper driving license. On this background, he submits
that the award has been wrongly passed and the appeal filed by the
insurance company may kindly be allowed and the enhancement
appeal made by the claimants may kindly be dismissed.
7. It transpires that on the fardbeyan of Md. Salim which was
recorded by S.I. Pramod Kumar of Sadar P.S. on 15.04.2011 at 8:40
AM at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh stating that he was working at
Kolkata and marriage of his younger brother Md. Ramjan was to be
solemnized in that month. On this occasion, Md. Shamsul aged 18
years, who was his Bhagina and he was returning from Kolkata and
there was crowd in the Pawan Hans Bus and he sat on the roof of
top of the bus and near Bendi Village bus was taking turning near
bridge and in that course his hand became free and fall on the road
and he was injured and blood was cozying from his and he was
admitted at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh with the help of local people
and in course of treatment he died at 7:45 AM. He was learning the
electrical work. On the basis of written report Katkam Sandi P.S.
Case No.117 of 2011 dated 02.06.2011 under Sections 279, 304A of
IPC was registered against the driver of Pawan Hans bus.
8. From the record, it transpires that PW-1 namely Md. Salim
is said to be the informant and maternal uncle (mama) of the
deceased has stated in the FIR that he was learning the electrical
work and in the claim petition also it has been stated that he was
--4-- M.A. No. 686 of 2017 with M.A. No.08 of 2018
learning and in light of that the learned Court has held the income
of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- and how Rs.6,000/- figure will be
there that has not been proved by way of leading any evidence by
the claimants, as such so far income is concerned the Court finds
that there is no illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal. In
light of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 future prospect to the tune of 40%
was required to be paid to the claimants as the age of the deceased
was found to be 18 years, as such in the award the future prospect
will be added. For funeral expenses only Rs.5,000/- has been
awarded which is also not correct in light of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi (supra), as such on the head of
consortium a sum of Rs.70,000/- will be added in the award.
9. The Court finds that so far 8% penal interest is concerned
that is not in accordance with law, as such interest part is modified
to the effect to the tune of 6.7% per annum from the date of
application till the date of payment.
10. The owner of the vehicle in question has appeared before
the learned Court and he has stated that the vehicle in question was
insured and the vehicle was being driven by the competent driver
having the driving license and further all the papers, permit,
insurance policy and other documents are genuine and valid and
considering all these aspects the learned Tribunal has held that the
insurance company has not been able to prove it contrary by way of
--5-- M.A. No. 686 of 2017 with M.A. No.08 of 2018
leading any further evidence and in view of that the Court finds that
so far the driving license is concerned, it has not been proved
before the learned Tribunal by the insurance company that it was
not valid, as such that argument of learned counsel for the
insurance company is not being accepted by the Court.
11. So far travelling on roof is concerned that is proved in view
of FIR itself and nobody should be allowed to travel on the roof and
that was the duty of owner of the vehicle and the staff appointed by
the owner on the bus.
12. The general principles of law talks with regard to the liability
of the master for the acts of his servant are not in dispute and in
the case in hand it is an admitted position that the deceased was
travelling on the roof which has been driven by the driver of the
said vehicle and in view of that the principle it is clear that a servant
is acting within the scope of his employment and in so acting does
something negligent or wrongful the employer is liable even the
acts done may be the very reverse of that which the servant was
actually directed to do and this has happened by way of allowing
conductor and driver of the bus, as such the owner cannot be
allowed to escape free.
13. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the award will
be modified to the effect that the owner will be liable to pay 50% of
the awarded amount to the claimants, however, the entire awarded
amount shall be paid by the insurance company and the insurance
company will be at liberty to recover 50% of the awarded amount
--6-- M.A. No. 686 of 2017 with M.A. No.08 of 2018
from the owner.
14. These appeals are allowed in part in above terms and
accordingly disposed of.
15. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company
in M.A. No.08 of 2018 shall be transmitted back to the learned
Tribunal which will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of
the claimants and the awarded amount shall be released in favour
of the claimants within six weeks.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
A.F.R.
--7-- M.A. No. 686 of 2017 with M.A. No.08 of 2018
