[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Punam Devi W/O Late Manish Kumar vs Baidhnath Kumar Saw on 28 November, 2025
2025:JHHC:35710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 402 of 2016
---------
1. Punam Devi W/o Late Manish Kumar,
2. Ritu Kumari, D/o Late Manish Kumar,
3. Abhijeet Kumar, S/o Late Manish Kumar,
4. Abhishek Kumar, S/o Late Manish Kumar,
5. Dharmshila Devi, W/o Jitendra Singh,
6.Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Ram Lakhan Singh, All resident of
Sadar Hospital Colony, Hirapur, Dhanbad, P.O.- Dhanbad,
P.S.- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand Pin Code No.-
826001. ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Baidhnath Kumar Saw, S/o Late Babulal Saw, Resident of 2
Raj Ground Jharia Behind B.D.O. Office Near Khatal, P.O. &
P.S. Jharia, District-Dhanbad.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Dhanbad Branch
Office, Katras Road, Matkuria P.O. & P.S. Bank More,
Dhanbad.
... ... Defendants/Respondents
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1/
(Owner) : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate
For the Resp. No.2/
Insurance Company : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 28.07.2025 Pronounced on 28 .11.2025
1. Heard Mr. Parth Jalan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants/claimants, Mr. Kumar Nilesh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1/Owner
2025:JHHC:35710
and Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company.
2. The present miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by
the claimants against the award dated 17.03.2016 passed in
Title (M.V.) Suit No. 01 of 2013 by the learned District Judge-
XV- cum- P O, M.A.C.T., Dhanbad, whereby Tribunal has
dismissed the suit of the claimants and held that neither the
Owner nor the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the
Compensation
3. The brief facts of the case is that Manish Kumar (since
deceased) being Co-driver/driver while returning from Asansol
after unloading the vegetables, along with other Co-
driver/driver Sudhir Kumar Ram and his friend Amit Kumar
Srivastava from TATA ACE pickup van bearing registration No.
JH-10Z/3595 which was knocked down by unknown truck
coming from opposite side, driven by its driver in rash and
negligent manner. Due to the said incident, all the three
persons got injured and on the way to hospital Manish Kumar
and his friend Amit Kumar Srivastava succumbed to injury.
4. An F.I.R., regarding above said incident has been got
registered on the fardbeyan of injured Co-driver/driver Sudhir
Kumar Ram, being Govindpur P. S. Case No. 06 of 2012 under
Sections 279/ 337/ 338/ 304A of IPC. Thereafter, due
investigation was done and charge sheet was submitted
against unknown driver of the offending truck. Thereafter, the
appellants/claimants, including wife, children and parents of
the deceased-Manish Kumar, filed an application for the
compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (in short M.V. Act.
5. The owner of the vehicle TATA ACE pickup van bearing
registration no. JH-10Z-3595 and Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company made opposite party in the said
2025:JHHC:35710
application and they filed their respective written statement
and denied their liability to pay the compensation.
6. During enquiry before the Tribunal, two witnesses got
examined on behalf of Claimants. One of the claimants got
examined as A.W.-1 who happens to be wife of the deceased
and reiterated the fact that on account of rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending truck, it got dashed and
the deceased succumbed to injuryA.W.-2 also got examined
who happens to be father of the deceased and reiterated the
fact as stated by A.W.-1. Claimants further brought on record
a numerous documents which were exhibited as :
Ext-1:- FIR along with fardbeyan
Ext-2:- Charge-sheet
Ext-3 :-Postmortem
Ext-4 :-Death certificate of the deceased Manish Kumar
Ext-5 :- Admit Card
Ext-6 :- Marks-sheet of Matriculation and equivalent
issud by Sahitya..........Allahabad
Ext-7 :- Original certificate ....
Ext-8 :- Transfer certificate
7. On behalf of opposite parties, Defendant No.-2 Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Company, D.W. - 1 Shailesh Anand,
Legal Officer of Insurance Company got examined who
admitted the fact that the said vehicle (TATA ACE) was insured
at the time of accident and the deceased was not a Co-driver
rather he was a gratuitous passenger.
8. Defendant No.-1, who happens to be owner of the vehicle
TATA ACE pickup van bearing registration no.JH-10Z3595
also got examined and reiterated the incident and the fact that
the said vehicle TATA ACE was insured at the time of accident
and the deceased was his employee. The documents proved by
the defendant No.1 has been brought on record, are as follows:
Copy of insurance certificate exhibited as Ext-A.
2025:JHHC:35710
Original temporary permit exhibited as Ext-B.
Temporary permit exhibited as Ext-C.
Certificate of fitness exhibited as Ext-D
Copy of insurance policy exhibited as Ext-E
Copy of registration of vehicle in question marked "Y"
Copy of tax token marked by "Y/1"
9. After analyzing the material available on record, the
learned Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 17.03.2016
rejecting the claim application of the claimants and being
dissatisfied with the above impugned order, the appellants-
claimants preferred this instant appeal.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellants- claimants submitted
that learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application
and failed to consider that the deceased was employed as a
Co-driver on the said TATA Ace van at the time of the accident.
It is pointed out that the claim application has been made by
only one person being a Co-driver i.e. by the deceased, which
is squarely covered under existing Insurance policy.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants- claimants drew the
attention of this court towards Ext. A which is the copy of
Insurance policy certificate of the said TATA ACE van and
pointed out that a sum of Rs 50/- was paid by the
insured/owner in addition to the premium to cover the liability
for 2 persons other than the Owner-driver of the said TATA
ACE van and even if deceased would be considered as Co-
driver/spare driver, then also he (deceased) is covered under
the said policy and therefore, a suitable order be passed
awarding compensation to indemnify the Claimants under
section 163-A of M.V. Act.
12. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.-1/owner
submitted that the TATA ACE Pickup Van was duly insured
with the respondent no.-2/Insurance Company at the time of
accident and the deceased was his employee, working as
2025:JHHC:35710
Co-driver on the monthly basis, as such, the liability is of
Insurance Company to compensate the claimants.
13. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.-2/Insurance
company submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly
dismissed the claim application of the claimants by
considering all the evidences on record in the light of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 and
held that the said TATA ACE Pickup Van being goods carriage
vehicle and the deceased was neither the driver at the time of
accident nor was engaged in driving the said vehicle and, as
such, no interference is required in the order passed by the
learned Tribunal.
14. This Court carefully gone through argument advanced on
behalf of the parties and the material available on record.
15. The sole issue that arose in this appeal for consideration
is whether the deceased, being Co-driver/spare driver of the
said vehicle, was covered under the said Insurance policy and
entitled to compensation or not.
16. Record reveals that Ext. A is the Insurance Policy
certificate for the TATA ACE pickup van bearing registration
no. JH-10Z 3595, is a commercial vehicle package policy
having its validity from 17.02.2011 to 16.02.2012 (midnight).It
further transpires from the perusal of the said Policy that a
sum of Rs. 5730/- was paid against the premium which also
includes payment of additional sum of Rs 50/- under the head
for "LL For Operation/Maintenance for 2 Persons".
17. Admittedly, the Insurance policy was valid at the time of
said accident and it transpires that additional sum of Rs 50/-
was paid by the Owner of the TATA ACE pickup van, to cover
the legal liability for any 2 persons into
Operation/Maintenance. Therefore, it would be clear that the
Insurance Policy cover four persons which include two persons
i.e. the Owner and the driver and definitely include two other
2025:JHHC:35710
persons that would be Co-driver/Operation/Maintenance
persons.
18. Defendant No.-1, who happens to be owner of the
Vehicle TATA ACE pickup van bearing registration no. JH-10Z
3595 has categorically stated that he is the owner of the
Vehicle TATA ACE pickup van bearing registration no. JH-10Z
3595 and Manish Kumar (since deceased) being Co-driver of
the said TATA ACE pickup van bearing registration no. JH-
10Z 3595 died in the accident on 06.01.2012 and for last one
year working as Co-driver on the monthly salary of Rs 3,330/-
.Charge sheet (Ext.2) further reveals that Manish Kumar (since
deceased) who was in the said TATA ACE pickup van at the
time of accident, died due to dash from the unknown Chassis
coming from the opposite direction. Therefore, it is established
from the above discussion that the deceased was working as
Co-driver on the said TATA ACE pickup van.
19. In case of Saju P. Paul (Supra) as relied by the
Insurance Company is of no help in the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the peculiar facts of Saju P. Paul (Supra) has held
that the claimant was not employed as a driver in the vehicle
that met with an accident and was not covered under the
Insurance policy as premium was paid specifically for only one
driver and one cleaner and not for other employee and thus,
the spare driver/co-driver remained outside the purview of the
Insurance Policy. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed
Insurance Company to indemnify the award to the Claimants
due to the peculiar facts of that case. Coming to the facts in
hand of the instant appeal, the deceased was engaged in the
vehicle as Co-driver which met with an accident and an
additional amount was included in the premium of the
Insurance policy of the said vehicle for the Coverage of 2
persons who being into maintenance/Operation other than
2025:JHHC:35710
Owner-driver. Therefore, this Court distinguish the facts of the
present appeal from the facts of Saju P. Paul (Supra) relied
by the Tribunal and placed by the appellant -Insurance
Company.
20. On the bedrock of the discussion made in the preceding
paragraphs, this Court is of considered view that the deceased
was Co-driver in the said TATA ACE pickup van bearing
registration no. JH-10Z 3595 and squarely cover under the
Insurance Policy of the said TATA ACE pickup van. Therefore,
the Respondent- Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the
appellants-Claimants.
21. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, A.W.-1 is
the wife of the deceased testified in her evidence that the
deceased was earning Rs 3,330/- as monthly income and the
same has been reiterated in his evidence by A.W.-2 being the
father of the deceased. Defendant No.-1, who happens to be
owner of the vehicle TATA ACE pickup van bearing registration
no. JH-10Z 3595 who also testified that for last one year
deceased was his employee and working as Co-driver having
monthly salary of Rs 3,330/-.This court on the basis of above
discussion and in absence of any documentary evidence to
substantiate the salary of the deceased as testified by the
witnesses in their evidence, is of considered view that it would
be appropriate for this court to consider the monthly income of
the deceased to be Rs 3000/-.
22. As far as quantum is concerned, the claim application
was filed under Section 163 A of M.V. Act, the compensation
has to be awarded as per the structured formula as given in
the second schedule to the Act. Considering the monthly
income as Rs. 3,000/- and the age of the deceased to be 30
years as per P.M report, the annual dependency will be
computed by taking 1/3rd as living expense of the deceased to
be Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 2/3 = Rs.24,000/-. The deceased was aged
2025:JHHC:35710
30 years for which multiplier 18 will be applicable, thus
compensation amount is Rs. 24,000 x 18= Rs.4,32,000/-.
Besides this, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,500/- under
the heading general damages constituting funeral expenses(Rs
2000/-),Loss of consortium(Rs 5000/-),Loss of estate (Rs
2000/-),as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act at
the relevant point of time. Thus, the total compensation
amount comes out to Rs.4, 41,500/-.
23. As far as, interest part is concerned, this Court taking
into account the legal proposition in the judgment rendered by
the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Mannat Johal, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 260, is of
considered view that Respondent- Insurance Company is liable
to pay the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs. 4,41,500/-,
after deduction of interim compensation if awarded, along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum simple interest, from the date of
filing of the suit, within a period of 45 days from today.
24. Consequently, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal being
M.A. No. 402 of 2016, is hereby, allowed.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 28.11.2025
Suman/- A.F.R.
