Allowed

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Bhikhani Devi And Ors.

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2012MA/213/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned a 10-day delay in filing an appeal. Hearing the appeal on consent between parties, the court modified a lower court award regarding mortality compensation by adjusting the multiplier, directing the insurer to deposit Rs. 2.6 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

The I.A. for condonation of delay was allowed. The appeal was allowed with direction to modify the award and deposit Rs. 2,60,000 in court.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Bhikhani… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M.A. No. 213 of 2008 With I.A.NO.2662/2008

¶3

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Dhanbad

¶4

... ... … Appellant. Versus Bhikhani Devi & Ors. ..... ... Respondents. --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY --- For the Appellant : M/s. D.C.Ghose, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mrs. Anita Shrivastava, Advocate

¶5

Order No.19 Dated: 06.09.2012 ORDER

¶6

By Court: Heard counsel appearing for the appellant and the counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants on the limitation matter(I.A.NO.2662/2008).

¶7

The application(I.A.No.2662/2008) has been filed by the appellant for condoning the delay of ten days in filing the instant appeal.

¶8

As sufficient reason has been shown for condoning the delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The I.A.No.2662/2008 is allowed.

¶9

With the consent of both the parties, the instant appeal is being heard for final disposal.

¶10

This appeal has been filed against the judgment 29.03.2008 passed in Title (M.V.) Suit No.114/2006 directing the New India Assurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- in total within one month from the date of the order to the plaintiffs failing which the plaintiffs shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till realisation of the decreetal amount.

¶11

The case of the claimant, in brief, is that on 24.05.2006 at about 10 P.M., Subhas Yadav @ Subhas Gope(deceased) who was khalasi of the offending vehicle/truck bearing registration no.JH-10J-7964 was on duty and when the said truck reached near Parasiya Joria Pool, started rolling backward due to heavy charhai(up) and due to running of the truck towards back side, the driver of the said vehicle told the khalasi of the said truck to jump from the truck and to give some stones into the wheel of the truck to obstruct the movement of the wheel of the truck towards backward side and on such attempt by the khalasi, the back wheel of the truck came upon the

¶12

deceased resulting his instant death at the spot. In respect of the said incident, an information was lodged in Putki P.S. and a case was registered under Sections 279/304(A) I.P.C.

¶13

Counsel appearing for the appellant-Company has submitted that the trial court has awarded compensation to the claimant without considering the appropriate number of the multiplier. The trial court has taken 17 as multiplier which is excessive and unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the deceased was only 21 years of age at the time of occurrence and he was unmarried. The parents of the deceased were 61 and 56 years of age at the relevant period. Therefore, the number taken as the multiplier is absolutely illegal. According to law it should be 8 to 10.

¶14

Counsel for the claimant-respondent has submitted that she has no objection if the Insurance-Company pay the claimant a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs as lumpsum amount.

¶15

Counsel appearing for the Insurance-Company has grievance only with respect to the number of the multiplier which is taken by the trial court as 17 and has awarded compensation amounting to Rs.4,08,000/- to the claimant.

¶16

From the impugned judgment I find that the trial court has directed the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of compensation, in total, a sum of Rs.3,58,000/- after deducting Rs.50,000/- which has already been paid as interim compensation to the claimant and on failure, the claimants-respondents shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 % p.a. from the date of the order till the realisation of the decreetal amount.

¶17

Considering all these aspects and considering the grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company in respect of the number of multiplier which is taken by the trial court as 17, I direct the appellant- Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- as lumpsum amount to the claimant within a period of two months from the date of this order. As the appellantInsuracne Company has already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/to the claimant towards interim compensation,therefore, the Insurance Company will deposit an Account payee cheque for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- in the name of the claimant in the court below.

¶18

The trial court, after deposit of the aforesaid cheque, will handover the same to the claimant after proper verification.

¶19

With the above direction, the appeal is allowed and the award is accordingly modified. 14. The appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- which has been deposited at the time of filing of the appeal.

¶20

( Jaya Roy, J .)

¶21

Biswas.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Bhikhani Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Bhikhani Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Vs Mala Devi And Ors.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Khiriya Devi And Ors.

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Vs Ashis Kumar And Ors.

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

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.

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Vs Mala Devi And Ors.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Khiriya Devi And Ors.

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Vs Ashis Kumar And Ors.

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

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