Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager v. Nilu Devi and Ors.

Jharkhand HC13 Mar 2023MA/8/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Insurance Company. The Court held that the permit issue was properly dealt with by the Tribunal since the owner raised it and the appellant did not press it. The Court ordered the return of the deposited statutory amount.

What did the court decide?

The deposited statutory amount shall be transmitted back to the Appellant/Insurance Company.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

1 M.A. No. 08 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

M.A. No. 08 of 2015

¶5

----

¶6

United India Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, Rajhans Mansion, Bank More, P.O. and P.S. Bank More, Dhanbad

.... Appellant

-- Versus --

1.Nilu Devi

2.Kauleshwar Paswan 3.Sita Devi …. Claimant nos.1,2 and 3 respectively 4.Bhupendra Nath Pandey …. Current Owner/O.P.No.1 5.Varahi Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. …. Erstwhile Owner/O.P.No.3 …. .... Respondents ----

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

--- For the Appellant/Insurance Company	:-	Mr. Alok Lal , Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3	:-	Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate
For the Respondent No.4 ----	:-	Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, Advocate

¶13

16 /13.03.2023 Heard Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ Insurance Company, Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents /claimant nos.1,2 and 3, respectively and Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4/ Current Owner-O.P.No.1.

¶14

Notice upon the respondent no.5 has been validly served by way of paper publication/substituted service of notice, however, on repeated call nobody has responded on behalf of the respondent no.5.

¶15

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Award dated 26.08.2014 passed by learned District Judge Cum M.A.C.T Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No.166 of 2002, the appellant/ Insurance

¶16

2 M.A. No. 08 of 2015

¶17

Company has preferred this appeal.

¶18

The case of the claimants/plaintiffs is that on 11.7.2002, while the deceased Manoj Kumar Paswan was going towards Katras on his motorcycle bearing registration no.JH10B-5078 and at about 8.30 a.m when he reached at Panchgarhi Bazar (Katras) in front of Khaitan Towers, a dumper bearing number BR17G-4435 coming at a high speed dashed the motorcycle as a result of which Manoj Kumar Paswan died on spot and that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question and there was no fault on behalf of the deceased. It is further stated that the deceased was aged 21 years and he was working as a private coal loading supervisor for private coal merchants and he was earning Rs.3900/- per month at the rate of Rs.150/- per day (except Sunday) and altogether the claimants have claimed a compensation of Rs.7 lacs under section 166 of the M.V. Act.

¶19

The learned Tribunal after framing of the issues and submission of the learned counsel for the defendants had been pleased to allow a sum of Rs.5,26,600/- as a compensation to be paid [Rs.5,76,600/- (-) Rs.50,000/-] which was paid under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act thus the compensation amount comes to Rs.5,26,600/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization of the amount. Aggrieved with this, the appellant/ Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

¶20

Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ Insurance Company submits that both the issue of filing of the permit has been taken by the appellant/ Insurance Company but, the learned Tribunal has not dealt with this aspect of the matter and in that view of the matter, the appellant/ Insurance company is entitled to pay/satisfy the awarded amount and to recover it from the owner of the

¶21

3 M.A. No. 08 of 2015

¶22

vehicle in question. He submits that there is direct judgment on this issue rendered in the case of “Pappu vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba”. On this ground, he submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed.

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Shikarwar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4/ Current Owner-O.P.No.1 submits that the ground of permit was taken by the appellant/ Insurance Company but the same was not pressed and accordingly the issue was decided against the appellant/ Insurance Company and there is no illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal.

¶24

Mr. Laik, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has dealt with the point argued on behalf of the appellant/ Insurance company as issue no.4.

¶25

In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal and finds that the permit issue has been dealt by the learned Tribunal as issue no.4 and the respondent no.4 who is the owner of the vehicle in question has filed the written statement stating that the valid permit was there.

¶26

The appellant/ Insurance company had filed a petition on 20.2.2012 seeking direction upon the owner to produce the permit of the offending vehicle but without serving the copy of the same to the earlier owner or the present owner and the said petition was never moved by the appellant/ Insurance company and in that view of the matter that issue was decided against the appellant/ Insurance company.

¶27

The Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly dealt with that issue and the onus lies upon the Insurance company when theh plea was taken by the owner that permit was there that too a petition was filed it was incumbent upon the Insurance company to place that petition for calling of the permit and in that view of the matter, the Court

¶28

4 M.A. No. 08 of 2015

¶29

finds that there is no illegality in the impugned Award. The judgment relied by Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ Insurance company is not helping the appellant/Insurance company in view of the fact that the owner has already appeared in this case and has taken the plea of permit and the appellant/ Insurance company has not pressed that issue, accordingly, M.A. No.08 of 2015 is dismissed.

¶30

Mr. Laik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1,2 and 3/claimant nos.1,2 and 3, respectively fairly submits that the Award has already been satisfied.

¶31

In view of such submission of Mr. Laik, the learned counsel, the statutory amount deposited by the appellant/ Insurance company shall be transmitted back to the appellant/ Insurance company.

¶32

Let the L.C.R be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶34

SI/;

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager v. Nilu Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager v. Nilu 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

Anil Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Lala Steel Private Limited through Its Director Ashish Bhanu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nagendra Nath Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Verma And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dilip Kumar Pradhan And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gurmit Singh Mahal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand