Allowed

Rookmania Devi v. Ideal Financing Industries And O

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2012MA/174/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal concerned compensation entitlement of a widow who remarried five years after her husband's death in a motor accident. The court held she was entitled to compensation for that period and directed the insurer to pay Rs. 35,000 without remand.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to pay Rs. 35,000 compensation for five-year period to appellant within two months

Rookmania Devi Vs Ideal Financing Industries And O — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 174 of 2006

Rookmania Devi

... ... … Appellant

Versus

Ideal Financing Industries

¶6

United India Insurance Compancy Limited ... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY

¶8

For the Appellant : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. H.K. Singh, Advocate

¶9

Order No. 10 Dated 4th September 2012

¶10

ORDER

¶11

By Court, With the consent of both the parties this case is being heard for final disposal.

¶12

This appeal has been filed by the claimant, namely, Rookmania Devi for against award dated 27.03.2006 passed in Title Claim Suit No. 36/90 passed by the learned Judge of Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal-Cum-1^st Additional District Judge, Pakur rejecting the claim petition of the appellant.

¶13

This claim case is filed by the claimant, namely, Rookamania Devi, present appellant for awarding the compensation on account of the death of her husband, namely, Shankar Yadav, who died in a motor accident. Further case of the claimant is that when the deceased was going to urinate on the right side of the road plank of Pakur road, a truck bearing No. BHL 719 which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed her husband Shankar Yadav (deceased) and the deceased was smashed and became senseless and after few hours, he died. The postmortem was held at Mission Hospital, Hiranpur and thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the relatives.

¶14

From the records, I find that admittedly the vehicle was insured with the defendant No.2 i.e., United India Insurance Company Ltd. , who is the respondent No.2 in the present appeal.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court below has rejected her claim case only on the ground that she has re-married with another person namely, Chhote Yadav of Calcutta. It is further contended that the aforesaid accident took place on 24.08.1990 and On that very date her husband namely, Shankar Yadav died. Thereafter, after five years, she has remarried with the aforesaid person, namely, Chhote Yadav.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that all these facts have come in the evidence of the present appellant, who is D.W. 3. Therefore, she is entitled for compensation for the

¶17

period of five years, from the date of death of her first husband till the date of her second marriage.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, who is the respondent No. 2, has neither disputed the aforesaid fact regarding the re-marriage of the appellant nor he has disputed the date of the accident or the year of re-marriage of the appellant. He has also contended that the Insurance Company has already paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) to the appellant. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, admittedly, the appellant has re-married after five years of the death of her first husband, who met with an accident, she is entitled for compensation for the said five years. As no use to remand of the case to the Court below for calculating the amount of compensation for the said period of five years after expiry of such a long time, in my opinion, in the interest of Justice the Insurance company will pay her a sum of Rs. 60,000/- (sixty thousand) as compensation for the aforesaid period of five years. 9. As it has come in the impugned judgment that she has already received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand), I direct the United India Insurance Company Ltd., who is the respondent No.2 to pay the rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 35,000/- (thirty five thousand) in total within a period of two months from the date of this order. The respondent No.2 will deposit an account payee cheque in the name of the appellant in the Court below, the Court below after proper verification handover the said cheque to the appellant.

¶19

With the aforesaid direction, this appeal is allowed.

¶20

( Jaya Roy, J .)

¶21

Satayendra

Rookmania Devi v. Ideal Financing Industries And O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rookmania Devi v. Ideal Financing Industries And O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartic Gupta Alias Kartik Sao and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sunita Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Manoj Jaiswal Alias Manoj Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jaigy Oraon Jatru Oraon And an Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And

Sanjay Kumar Prasad Sanjay P Vs Arun Kumar Mandal And Ors.

Asraf Khan And Ors. Vs Tata Motors Ltd. And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Kartic Gupta Alias Kartik Sao and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sunita Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Manoj Jaiswal Alias Manoj Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jaigy Oraon  Jatru Oraon And an Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And

Sanjay Kumar Prasad  Sanjay P Vs Arun Kumar Mandal And Ors.

Asraf Khan And Ors. Vs Tata Motors Ltd. And Anr.

Jaigy Oraon Jatru Oraon And an Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And

Sanjay Kumar Prasad Sanjay P Vs Arun Kumar Mandal And Ors.