Dismissed

National Insurance Company Limited through Its Legal Cell v. Sudha Devi and Ors.

Jharkhand HC16 Jan 2023MA/415/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court upheld the award of compensation and interest, rejecting the appellant's claims regarding the driving license and permit, as the Tribunal had provided valid reasons.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is directed to comply with the award; the statutory amount deposited shall be transmitted back to the Tribunal.

National Insurance Company Limited through Its Legal Cell Vs… — Insurance | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M .A. No. 415 of 2015

¶3

National Insurance Company Limited,

¶4

New Road, Fusro, P.O. & P.S.-Furso, District-Bokaro,

¶5

through its legal cell, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O.,

¶6

P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi. ..... … Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sudha Devi, wife of Late Lalu Modak

¶9

Ajay Kumar Modak @ Tiranga Modak, son of Late Lalu Modak

¶10

3A. Sanjay Kumar, son of Uma Shankar Khandelwal ..... … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

-----For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. For the Resp. Nos. 1 & 2 : Ms Priti, Advocate. For the Resp. No. 3 : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.

¶14

¶15

11/ 16.01.2023 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ms Priti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3A.

¶16

This appeal has been directed against the award dated 17.03.2015, in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 34 of 2003, passed by the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T. Judge-VII, Dhanbad, whereby compensation of Rs. 3,49,500/- has been directed to be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till the date of realization to the claimant.

¶17

The claim case was filed alleging therein that on 07.06.2002 about 7:00 AM, while the deceased Lalu Modak was getting his TDV dumper bearing registration number BR-20-G-3693 loaded at Kalyani MP siding, unfortunately, his neck got pressed between the dala (trailor) and chasis of the said vehicle, as a result of which, the deceased died at the spot. It is the further case of the claimant that he was driver of the said dumper belonging to one BKB Transport Company owned by one Govind Khandelwal and was earning Rs. 2500/- per month, as he was 28 years old at the relevant time of his accidental death and altogether the claimants have claimed 4.6 lakhs as compensation under Section 163-A of MV Act.

¶18

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-company submits that the appellant has challenged the award on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not given a valid reason of not accepting the contention of the appellant company with regard to valid driving license and the permit of the vehicle in question. On that ground,

¶19

-2-

¶20

he submits that the liability can be fastened upon the owner and the learned Tribunal has failed to give the direction to recover the amount after satisfying the same from the owner of the vehicle in question. He further submits that the interest part is also on the higher side. Learned counsel, accordingly, submits that this appeal may kindly be allowed.

¶21

On the other hand Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3A submits that the driving license as well as permit has been considered by the learned Tribunal in para-11 of the said award and has rightly provided the reasons of not accepting the contention of the appellant. He further submits that the permit as well as driving license was already there. He further submits that in case of death, only the meager amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal to be complied by the appellant.

¶22

Ms Priti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation amount in favour of the claimants, is in accordance with law and there is no illegality in the said impugned award.

¶23

In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of learned court appearing for the parties and also after going though the award dated 17.03.2015, the court finds that the learned Tribunal has framed altogether eight issues to be decided in the claim. With regard to driving license, issue No. (vii) has been framed and issue nos. (vii) and (viii) has been discussed at para-11 of the award. The learned Tribunal has held that the Insurance Company did not produce any evidence to disprove the driving license, given by the insured owner. It has further been disclosed that the driver in this case is himself the deceased and as already held that he is being taken the insurance as a third party, as he has already alighted from the vehicle when the accident took place, in that view of the matter, the driving license does not have any bearing in the case, as has been held by the learned Tribunal. So far as permit is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken care and has also written the reasons that one of the witness was examined by the insurance company and in the evidence of said witness, it has come that he has visited the house of the owner to demand the permit, but he has not mentioned any date or time, when he visited the house of the owner, therefore his statement was not found reasonable to the court and on that ground, on the point of driving license and permit, the contention of the insurance company was rejected. The court finds that valid reasons have been

¶24

-3-

¶25

provided by the Tribunal, that’s why the argument of the appellant is not accepted by the court. This is a case of death and meager amount has been awarded by the Tribunal and that’s why on the point of interest, the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not accepted by this Court.

¶26

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to comply with the award. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant-company shall be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal shall take endeavour to satisfy the award in favour of the claimants at the earliest.

¶27

Amitesh/-

¶28

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

National Insurance Company Limited through Its Legal Cell v. Sudha Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited through Its Legal Cell v. Sudha Devi and Ors.

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

Basudeo Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harish Chandra Srivastava Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Steel

Ashit Kumar Basak alias Asit Kumar Vs Amulya Kumar Basak

Thepai Turi And Ors. Vs Emil Minj And Ors.

Dewanti Devi And Ors. Vs Bimla Devi And Ors.

Shekh Mazid Mian Vs Sanichar Bedia 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

Basudeo Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harish Chandra Srivastava Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Steel

Ashit Kumar Basak  alias Asit Kumar Vs Amulya Kumar Basak

Thepai Turi And Ors. Vs Emil Minj And Ors.

Dewanti Devi And Ors. Vs Bimla Devi And Ors.

Shekh Mazid Mian Vs Sanichar Bedia And Ors.

Ashit Kumar Basak alias Asit Kumar Vs Amulya Kumar Basak