Partly allowed

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

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2012MA/344/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condoned the appellants' delay of 217 days due to sufficient cause and poverty. It then enhanced the accident compensation by Rs. 50,000, considering the appellants' age, directing the insurance company to pay the sum via a depositable cheque.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 50,000; direction to Insurance Company to deposit via cheque within two months.

Jaigy Oraon Jatru Oraon And an Vs New India… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No. 344 of 2008

¶2

Jaigi Oraon @ Jatru Oraon

¶3

Bishani Orain ... … Appellants

¶4

Versus

¶5

The New India Insurance Company Limited

¶6

Sudhir Kumar Singh ... ... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY

¶8

For the Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Order No.9 Dated, 5th September, 2012

¶11

I.A. No. 3564 of 2008

¶12

Appellants who are claimants, have filed the instant interlocutory application for condoning the delay of 217 days.

¶13

Counsel for the appellant, has submitted that as the appellants are poor villagers and after death of their only son having no source of income, went to Assam Tea Estate Company for their livelihood and for this reason, appellants could not file the instant appeal within the time prescribed.

¶14

Counsel for the respondent no.1 opposed the prayer.

¶15

Considering the submission made by the parties, and as the sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay, I condone the delay in filing this appeal.

¶16

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3564 of 2008 is disposed of.

¶17

M.A. No. 344 of 2008

¶18

As respondent no.2 is owner of the vehicle and the entire liability has been given on the Insurance Company, counsel appearing for the appellants prays for expunge the name of the respondent no.2 at his own risk, accordingly, the name of respondent no.2 is expunged from this appeal.

¶19

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

¶20

2 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 344 of 2008

¶21

Appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 7^th January, 2008 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Case No. 255 of 2000 directing the Insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,76,000/with interest at the rate of 5% per anum from January, 2005 to the claimants. Appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that compensation granted by the Court below is very meager amount as their claim was for Rs. 3.5 Lakhs with interest @ 12%.

¶22

The case in brief is that the only son of the appellants, was going to Kuru Block by scooter accompanied with another person and when they reached at Kuru Block, a truck bearing No. BR-14G-1711 came rashly and negligently and ultimately dashed with the scooter, result of which son of the appellants namely Rameshwar Oraon sustained fatal injury and died on the spot.

¶23

The counsel of the appellants, has submitted that the deceased who was their only son, was only 25 years old at the time of his death. It is also submitted that he was a labourer and sole earning member of his family. Both the appellants were depending on their only son for their livelihood. It is further contended that the age of the father of the deceased who is appellant no.1 is fifty years and the mother of deceased, who is the appellant no.2, is below fifty years of age. Therefore, the multiplier should be 15 in this case.

¶24

The counsel for the respondents has submitted that no paper regarding insurance has been produced. Though nothing has been produced on record regarding proof of the income of the deceased but the Court below has assessed his income Rs. 100/- per day and Rs. 2500/- per month as monthly income keeping in the view the holidays in a month, and thereafter, multiplier of 11 has been adopted. The multiplier is taken as 11 which is just and proper and quite reasonable as both the appellants are old persons who are the parents of the deceased, therefore, the trial Court has rightly granted the said amount which is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the company has already paid Rs. 1,45,573/- by cheque no. 105876 and

¶25

3 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 344 of 2008

¶26

earlier also Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, thus, the company has already paid Rs. 1,95,573/- in total to both the appellants.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and specially the age of the claimant-appellant no.1, who is father of the deceased, is only fifty years of age and the appellant no.2, who is mother of the deceased, is below the age of fifty years and as present days longibity of the man has increased, I, therefore, enhance the amount of compensation for a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- and direct the Insurance company to pay a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- in total to the claimantappellants.

¶28

Accordingly, the Insurance company shall deposit an account payee cheque of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the appellants in Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of this order. The Tribunal, after proper verification of the identity of the appellants, will handover the said cheque to them.

¶29

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.

¶30

( Jaya Roy, J .)

¶31

Anit

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Rookmania Devi Vs Ideal Financing Industries And O

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

Sunita Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

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.

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

Rookmania Devi Vs Ideal Financing Industries And O

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

Sunita Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

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.

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