Allowed

M J Auto World In Charge Mahli Sahu v. Mamta Devi Alias Mamta Gupta And Ors.

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2023MA/567/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court of Jharkhand addressed the appellant truck owner's challenge to a tribunal award. The court quashed the appellant's directive to pay compensation, relying on the definition of gratuitous passenger and Supreme Court precedent to shift the liability primarily to the insurance companies.

What did the court decide?

The award was modified to direct insurance companies to pay the compensation amount, with liberty to recover from the truck owner.

M J Auto World In Charge Mahli Sahu Vs Mamta Devi… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

M.A. No. 567 of 2015

¶4

M.J. Auto World In-charge Mahli Sahu son of Chamar Sahu, resident of village Court Road Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga

¶5

…….. Owner of Truck No. BR-14-7531/Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mamta Devi @ Mamta Gupta wife of late Rajesh Prasad Gupta

¶8

Priyanshu Raj son of late Rajesh Prasad Gupta

¶9

Sneha Kumari daughter of late Rajesh Prasad Gupta

¶10

Dropadi Devi, wife of Ram Sundar Sahu

¶11

Ram Sundar Sahu, son of late Sitaram Sahu (Name deleted vide order dated 06.06.2022)

¶12

SI. Nos. 2 and 3 are minors , all are residents of village Nawadih, P.O. and P.S. Khalari, District-Ranchi ………..Claimants/Respondents

¶13

Muslim Ansari, son of Safid Ansari, resident of village Hisri, P.O. and P.S. Kisko, District Lohardaga

¶14

………… Driver of Truck No. BR-14-7531/Respondent

¶15

National Insurance Company, Branch Office at Hotel Novelty, Palmerganj Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga.

¶16

………. Insurer of Truck No. BR-14-7531/Respondent

¶17

Jasim Ahmad son of Jubail Ahmad, resident of Amla Toli, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga. ………….Driver of Truck No. BR-42G-4236/Respondent

¶18

Girdhari Saraf.

¶19

10.Uday Saraf

¶20

11.Sanjay Saraf

¶21

12.Deepak Saraf.

¶22

SI. Nos. 9 to 12, all sons of late Shyam Sundar Saraf, resident of Mohalla Uppar Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga.

¶23

………..Owner of Truck No. BR 42G-4236/Respondents.

¶24

13.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at Hotel Novelty, Palmerganj Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga

¶25

………. Insurer of Truck No. BR-42G-4236/Respondent

¶26

Lakhan Oraon son of Sri Mahajan Oraon, resident of village Butti, Dumartoli, P.O. and P.S. Senha, District-Lohardga.

¶27

………..Driver of Truck No. BPV-8503/Respondent.

¶28

15.Anil Kumar son of Surendra Prasad, resident of village Senhai Gandhi Path, Palmerganj, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga.

¶29

………..Owner of Truck No. BPV-8503/Respondent

¶30

16.National Insurance Company, Branch Office at Hotel Novelty, Palmerganj Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga …………… Insurer of Truck No. BPV 8503/Opposite Parties/Respondents

¶31

---------

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶33

---------

¶34

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate For the Resp. No. 6 : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 8, 9 to 12: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 13: Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate

¶35

12/Dated: 17/01/2023

¶36

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.

¶37

P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned

¶38

¶39

counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 8, 9 to 12 and Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 13.

¶40

Rest of respondents have been validly served however nobody appeared on behalf of rest of the respondents. Respondent no. 5 has died and the name of respondent no. 5 was directed to be deleted vide order dated 06.06.2022.

¶41

Aggrieved with judgment and award dated 17.10.2015 passed by the learned District Judge-I-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga, in Claim Case No. 42 of 2007, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶42

On 30.04.2006 at about 12.45 P.M. the deceased-Rajesh Kumar Gupta was travelling towards Lohardaga to Ghaghra on a truck no. BR 14-7531. The said truck was driven from Lohardaga to Ghaghra. All of a sudden one another truck bearing Registration No. BR 42(G) 4236 came from opposite side driven in rashly and negligently and dashed the truck no. BR 14-7531 due to which the empty truck no. BR 14-7531 turned over towards western direction. In the meantime, third truck bearing registration no. BVP-8503 came driven rashly and negligently and dashed the empty truck no. BR 14-7531. In the accident many persons sustained grievous injuries and Rajesh Prasad Gupta died at the spot due to multiple injuries on his person. A case was registered being Senha P.S. Case No. 42/2006 against drivers of all the three trucks and after investigation police submitted chargesheet against all the drivers of the aforesaid three trucks. The postmortem of the deceased Rajesh Prasad Gupta was conducted at Sadar Hospital, Lohardaga on 30.04.2006.

¶43

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal has wrongly directed to pay 1/3^rd compensation by the appellant who is owner of the truck no. BR 14-7531. He submits that deceased was not gratuitous passenger. He was carrying a bundle of saree. He submits that the learned tribunal has wrongly held that he was gratuitous passenger and awarded compensation. On these grounds he submits that the appeal is fit to be allowed.

¶44

Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 13-Oriental Insurance Company submits that while deciding interim compensation in terms of Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, the learned tribunal has directed three insurance

¶45

¶46

companies to pay 1/3^rd amount each by the three insurance companies. National Insurance Company has insured two trucks and Oriental Insurance Company has insured one truck and liability is fastened with the National Insurance Company for the two trucks for the policy. He submits that in the truck in question not only deceased but other passengers were also travelling and the finding to that effect has been recorded by the learned tribunal while deciding issue nos. III, IV and V. He submits that Oriental Insurance Company has already satisfied the award. He submits that there is no illegality in the award.

¶47

Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 & 8, 9 to 12 submit that there is no illegality in the award and the learned tribunal after considering the submission of all the parties and looking into the evidences both oral and documentary passed the award. They submit that this court may not interfere with the award.

¶48

In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the judgement as well as L.C.R which has been called by order dated 21.06.2022. Learned Tribunal has framed eight issues while deciding the case. Issue No. III is with regard to collusion by the three trucks, Issue No. IV is with regard to whether all three trucks were being driven rashly and negligently by its drivers or not, Issue No. V is with regard to whether the deceased was travelling on the truck no. BR-14-7531 as gratuitous passengers at the time of accident or not. While deciding the Issue No. III, IV & V, the learned tribunal has looked into F.IR. (Exhibit-1) and Chargesheet (Exhibit-2) and has also discussed evidences and came to the conclusion that deceased was travelling in Truck No. BR 14 (G)-7531 along with other five passengers. The said accident occurred due to collusion of three trucks and it is admitted fact that all the offending trucks were insured with National Insurance Company Ltd and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident. The tribunal has held that that owner of the of trucks violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy while allowing the persons in travelling goods carrying vehicle and therefore, the owner is liable to pay compensation in the light of section

¶49

¶50

2 (14) of the Motor Vehicle Act.

¶51

Thus on these points there is cogent finding of the tribunal and in that view of the matter, the arguments of Mr. Mahtha is not accepted by this Court. Learned tribunal has directed the owner of the truck no. BR 14-7531 and two insurance companies i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and the National Insurance Company Ltd. to make payment after deducting the interim compensation amount if already paid to the claimants within one month of the date of the award failing which the owner of the truck no. BR 14-7531 and above two insurance companies shall be liable for penal interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till realization. The owner of the truck no. BR. 14-7531 and Oriental Insurance Company and National Insurance Company were directed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 2,67,666/- each to the claimants and it was directed that the amount if already paid as ad-interim compensation shall be deducted from the sum awarded to each opposite party.

¶52

The Truck No. BR 14-7531 was already insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swarn Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297, the National Insurance Company Ltd. shall also satisfy award with regard to truck no. BR 14-7531 with liberty to recover the same from the owner of truck no. BR 14-7531 who is appellant in this appeal. The award is modified to above extent. The rest of the finding of the learned tribunal shall remain intact. This appeal is disposed of in above terms.

¶53

The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall be remitted to the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal shall take endeavor to release the said amount and fruit of award in favour of the claimants at the earliest if the same has not been provided as yet.

¶54

Let L.C.R. be remitted back to the concerned court forthwith.

¶55

Satyarthi/

M J Auto World In Charge Mahli Sahu v. Mamta Devi Alias Mamta Gupta And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M J Auto World In Charge Mahli Sahu v. Mamta Devi Alias Mamta Gupta 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thepai Turi And Ors. Vs Emil Minj And Ors.

Dewanti Devi And Ors. Vs Bimla Devi And Ors.

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

Branch Manager Ms Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Reprr Thr Sri Alok Kumar Singh Vs Hadis Ansari And Ors.

Hadis Ansari Vs Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited Represented through Sri Alok Kumar Singh

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Shanti Devi and Ors.