Dismissed

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

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2012MA/252/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order first allowed a limitation application to condone a 97-day delay in filing a miscellaneous appeal. It then heard the appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award totaling Rs. 1,55,000 for a child's death. The High Court found the award reasonable, citing Supreme Court precedent on multiplier for young children, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Instant Miscellaneous Appeal No. 252 of 2008 was dismissed with no interference with the Tribunal's award.

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Vs Mala Devi And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No. 252 of 2008

¶2

M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ... … Appellant

¶3

Versus 1. Mala Devi 2. Sanjay Prajapati 3. Dineshwar Sharma ... ... Respondents

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY

¶5

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate

¶6

ORDER

¶7

Order No.8 Dated, 6th September, 2012

¶8

I.A. No. 788 of 2011

¶9

Appellant has filed the instant interlocutory application for condoning the delay of 97 days in filing the instant appeal.

¶10

This case has been filed on 11.08.2008 and for last four years it was pending for removing the defects. As the case is of four years old and sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay and for the interest of justice, I allow this limitation application and condone the delay.

¶11

Accordingly, I.A. No. 788 of 2011 is allowed.

¶12

M.A. No. 252 of 2008

¶13

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

¶14

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment/award dated 30^th January, 2008 passed by Shri Vishwanath Sahu, 1^st Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Chatra in Claim Case No. 41 of 2002.

¶15

The counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the driver was not made party in the claim case in the Court below, therefore, the entire judgment is vitiated on the ground of non joinder of the parties. He has further submitted that admittedly a minor girl who died in accident was aged about 6-7 years at the time of alleged accident but the Court below has

¶16

adopted the multiplier as 15 which is maximum number for the multiplier, it should be only 10/12 as the age of the deceased was only 6-7 years at the time of alleged accident, therefore, the amount granted as compensation to the claimant is not reasonable and it is excessive.

¶17

From the record, I find that the case of the claimant is proved as recorded in the claim petition that on 24.02.2002 at 11.30 a.m. the driver of Star Fish bus bearing registration no. BIM-4093 was going with high speed and due to rash and negligent driving dashed the victim Jyoti Kumari aged about 6-7 years near her house situated at Master Mohalla, Chatra and she came under the wheel of the bus and sustained grievous injuries in the accident and ultimately died. Regarding this accident, the grand father of the deceased submitted a written report before the Officer-in-Charge Bashisthanagar P.S., on the basis of which a police case i.e. Bashisthanagar P.S. Case No. 08 of 2002 was registered against the driver under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, thereafter, after investigation police has submitted charge-sheet in this case.

¶18

From the impugned judgment, I find that P.W.2, who is grand father of the deceased is an eye witness of the occurrence, was cross-examined at length and he has very specifically stated that due to rash and negligent driving, the vehicle dashed his grand daughter, result of which her body came under wheel of the bus and she died sustaining grievous injuries on her head. P.W.1 who is father of the deceased, has fully corroborated the documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit-1, 2 & 4. Exhibit-3 is original insurance policy which was effective from 03.06.2001 to 02.06.2002, admittedly covers the date of the occurrence i.e. 24.02.2002. Therefore, in my opinion, as the vehicle is insured with the appellant company, the appellant-company is liable to pay the compensation. Regarding the amount of compensation, it has come that insurance company has already paid a sum of

¶19

Rs. 65,466/- as interim compensation along with interest @ 8% per anum and the remaining amount is only Rs. 89,534/-. Admittedly, the deceased was about 6-7 years at the time of accident.

¶20

The Tribunal has awarded the total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- with the simple interest @ 8% from the date of claim petition i.e. 07.08.2002 till the final realization. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Syed Ibrahim & Others reported in (2007)11 S.C.C. 512 has held in similar situation:

¶21

“ In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospectus of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child capable of assessment on estimated basis nor is the financial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation”.

¶22

Furthermore, I find in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has affirmed the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,52,000/- granted by the Hon'ble High Court.

¶23

Considering all these aspects, in my opinion, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the case at hand Rs. 1,55,000/- to the claimants is quiet just and reasonable. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment/award of compensation for the interest of justice. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶24

Anit

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Bhikhani 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.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Bhikhani 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.