Dismissed

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

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2023MA/269/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed a first appeal against an award in a motor accident compensation case. The Court rejected the appellant insurance company's challenge to the Tribunal's 50% liability apportionment for each insurer in a collision involving two vehicles. The appeal was held to be without merit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with a direction to the appellant to comply with the Tribunal's award within six weeks.

Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gita Devi… — Insurance | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M .A. No. 269 of 2015

¶3

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Lalji Hirji Road, Main Road, Kotwali,

¶4

P.O.-Ranchi, District-Ranchi. ..... … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gita Devi, wife of Late Binod Saw

¶7

Pinki Kumari, Daughter of Late Binod Saw

¶8

Rinki Kumari,Daughter of Late Binod Saw

¶9

Ajay Kumar, son of Late Binod Saw

¶10

Rajan Kumar, son of Late Binod Saw

¶11

Chaliter Sao, son of Late Binod Saw [Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are minors, hence they are being represented through their mother as natural guardian and as next friend] All the residents of village-Shashtri Chowk, Madhukam, P.S.Sukhdeo Nagar, P.O.-Hehal, District-Ranchi.

¶12

Raj Kumar, son of Late Maheshwar Sahu, resident of villageTetri Toli, Main Road, P.O. and P.S.-Bero, District-Ranchi. 8. Shushila Devi, wife of Sagar Saw, resident of village-Paharpur Road, P.O. and P.S.-Kolkata, District-Kolkata. 9. V.V. Sectional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd., S.N. Ganguly Road, P.S.-Kotwali, P.O.-Ranchi, District-Ranchi.

¶13

..... … Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶16

¶17

For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate.

¶18

¶19

11/ 05.01.2023 Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 9.

¶20

In view of the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no need to issue fresh notice to respondent No. 8, the notice has been waived on behalf of respondent No. 8 by order dated 02.08.2022, as there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as the driving license was valid one. The substituted legal heirs of respondent No. 7 have not appeared.

¶21

The Lower Court Records are on the record. The insurance companies are present before the Court.

¶22

This appeal has been directed against the award dated 20.02.2015, in Compensation Case No. 221 of 2005, passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi.

¶23

The claimant filed the claim application on 22.08.2005 stating therein that Binod Saw and others were travelling in a commander jeep, bearing registration No. JH-01-AH-3964 and when they reached near Lalgutwa, the driver, who was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently met with an accident with Tata-407 truck, bearing registration

¶24

-2-

¶25

No. WB-19-D-0656, which was also driven at very high speed and in a very rash and negligent manner. It has also been stated that many persons sustained injures and two were grievously injured and one of them Binod Saw died on account of injuries. The case was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of Etwa Oraon and Ratu P.S. Case No. 21 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 2691 of 2005 was registered. The driver of both the vehicles were chargesheeted as an accused. In the claim application, it was mentioned that the deceased was having an earning of Rs. 4,000/- per month.

¶26

Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is some interpolation with regard to earning of the deceased, which has also been considered before the learned Tribunal, in spite of that claim has been allowed. He submits that the Tribunal has erred in directing to make payment of 50% each on both the Insurance companies. He further submits that the liability can be fastened to the tune of 75% to the heavier vehicle and only 25% upon the lighter vehicle. In that view of the matter, the appellant is required to pay only 25% of the awarded amount and the 75% of the awarded amount is required to be paid by the other insurance company, namely National Insurance Company.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that 50% towards future prospect has been assessed by the learned Tribunal, which is not in accordance with law and the conventional head is also required to be reduced and the awarded interest is also not in accordance with law.

¶28

The court has perused the assessment made by the Tribunal to the quantum of compensation and finds that the broader discussion has been made by the Tribunal and thereafter the compensation has been fixed by the said Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the argument of Mr. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is negated.

¶29

Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 9 National Insurance Company submits that in view of the pleading made by the appellant in the written statement, the liability of 50% has been fixed on each of the company and the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the award to be paid 50% each by both the insurance companies.

¶30

In view of the above facts and submissions of the parties and upon going through the impugned award, the court finds that admittedly the claim application was filed on 22.08.2005 and the accident took place

¶31

-3-

¶32

due to collusion of two vehicles. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has taken care of every aspect of the matter and awarded 50% each to be paid by both the insurance companies.

¶33

So far as argument of Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant with regard to annual income to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, that has been taken care of by the Tribunal and considering this aspect, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- only. As such, the said argument is also negated by the court.

¶34

In view of above and considering that that since National Insurance Company (respondent No. 9) has already complied the award, the argument with regard to interest is also negated by the court.

¶35

The court has perused the written statement, submitted by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., where in para-4 of the written statement, the said insurance company has stated that in a case of collusion of two vehicles, the liability would be upon the owner of both the vehicles. It has also been stated that both the insurance company have paid Rs. 25,000/- each as interim compensation to the claimants. The driving license has already been proved as a valid one and considering the written statement, filed by both the insurance companies, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to be paid to the tune of 50% each of the awarded amount.

¶36

In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to comply the award within six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall be sent to the learned Tribunal, which shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimant and the same shall be adjusted in the final compensation amount.

¶37

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶38

Amitesh/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gita 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

Smt Ful Kunwar Devi and Ors. Vs Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Sunil Manjhi And Ors. Vs Pawan Rai And Ors.

Soma Oraon Vs Kaila Oraon And Ors.

Bindeshwar Sahu and Anr. Vs Ram Udeshwar Ram and Ors.

Smt Prabhawati Lal and Ors. Vs Deshbandhu Gupta and Ors.

Smt Indu Gupta Alias Indu Devi and Ors. Vs Hemant Kumar Poddar