Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Chief Manager Claims Jayanta Roy Vs Anita Devi And Ors.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:15198 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 615 of 2017

¶3

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd through its Chief ManagerClaims, Jayanta Roy, S/o: Dr. D.K. Roy, C/o: Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd, Constantia office Complex, 2nd floor, 11 Dr. X V.N. Brahmchari Street, P.O and P.S:- Circus Avenue, Kolkata, (West Bengal)

¶4

. …....Petitioner

¶5

...VERSUS...

¶6

Anita Devi, W/O:- Late Jitendra Prasad,

¶7

Kajal Kumari, D/O:- Late Jitendra Prasad,

¶8

Kalpana Kumari, D/O:- Late Jitendra Prasad,

¶9

Adarsh Kumar, S/O:- Late Jitendra Prasad,

¶10

All Respondents/Claimants/Applicants are resident of Village and P.o:Barwa, P.s:- Barkatha, Distt:- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)

¶11

At present R/O: C/O: Chatru Ravidas, Village: Kendua, P.S:-Kenduadih, Distt:- Dhanbad, (Jharkhand)

¶12

Suresh Yadav, S/O: Late Khago Yadav, R/O: Sahu Tola, 85, Barkatha, P.O. and P.S: Barkatha, District: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand (Owner of Truck bearing No JH-02N-1699) …….Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Resp Nos. 1 to 4 :-Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate

¶15

07/Dated: 11/06/2025

¶16

Notice upon respondent no. 5 has already been effected however

¶17

he has chosen not to appear.

¶18

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.

¶19

Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶20

This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated

¶21

15.06.2017 passed in T.M.V. Claim Case No. 205/2013 by learned District Judge-XVIcum-Presiding Officer M.A.C.T at Dhanbad whereby the claim case was allowed and awarded an amount of Rs. 6, 32,150/-with interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. from 31.07.2013 within a period of 60 days of passing this award failing which penal interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum was

¶22

¶23

( 2025:JHHC:15198 )

¶24

directed to be charged after expiry of the aforesaid 60 days till its realization.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that death has not occurred due to accident insptie of that learned tribunal passed the award. According to him accident has taken place due to falling of iron rod while the deceased was discharging his work in view of that false case of accident has been made out and the learned tribunal has wrongly passed the award. On these grounds he submits that the award may kindly be set aside.

¶26

Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that accident has been proved before the learned tribunal and the ground which has been taken herein has not been proved by the appellant before the learned tribunal in view of that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived one. He submits that death has occurred due to accident and no amount has been paid till date to the claimants. He submits that this fact was also agitated before the learned tribunal and no evidence has been made.

¶27

The Court has gone through the impugned award dated 15.06.2017 wherein it appears that the claim case was instituted for accidental death of deceased- Jitendra Prasad in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. JH-02N-1699. It was further stated that the deceased namely Jitendra Prasad and his wife Smt. Anita Devi i.e. claimant no. 1 were traveling by Bus from their native house at Barkatha to Kusma on 08.09.2011 at about 8.00 A.M. and when their bus stopped at Barkatha Lakhan Hotel on G.T. Road, the deceased namely Jitendra Prasad was crossing the road to attend call of the nature. In the meantime, a truck bearing Registration No. JH-02N-1699 suddenly came with high speed in a rash and negligent way and dashed him, as a result of which, he was thrown on hard surface of the road resulting into multiple injuries to him, where from he was rushed to Barkatha Hospital where he was medically treated for one day. Thereafter, Barkatha Hospital referred him to Abdur Rajak Ansari Memorial Weavers Hospital, Ranchi where he was medically treated from 09.09.2011 to 23.09.2011 as an Indoor patient. The deceased was thereafter under regular treatment of that Hospital

¶28

¶29

( 2025:JHHC:15198 )

¶30

as outdoor patient, but he died on 08.05.2012 during the course of his medical treatment, for which Barkatha P.S. Case No. 117/2011 dated 11.09.2011 was registered for the offences under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of truck bearing Registration No. JH-02N-1699. It has been claimed that the deceased was a driver, earning Rs. 8000/- per month.

¶31

Learned tribunal has framed Issue No. III whether at the time of accident the driver of the truck bearing registration no. JH02N-1699 was driving the same rashly and negligently and Issue No. IV was whether the deceased-Jitendra Prasad died on 08.05.2011 due to road traffic accident occurring on 08.09.2011 or not. Both the issues were taken up together. The learned tribunal has appreciated the evidences laid down by P.W.1 and 2.

¶32

P.W.1 who happens to be wife- namely, Anita Devi has stated before the learned tribunal that her husband had sustained injuries by rash and negligent driving of the said truck her husband was thrown on hard surface due to which he received injuries. P.W.2 is also an eye witness has supported the same and remained constant.

¶33

Barkatha P.S. Case No. 117/2011 was registered for the said accident and was marked as Exhibit-1 pursuant to that investigation has been made and chargewheet has been submitted which has been marked as Exhibit-2. Exhibit-3 is Postmortem report.

¶34

In the light of all these documents, the learned tribunal has come to the conclusion that accident has occurred. Nothing contrary has been proved by the Insurance Company before the learned court.

¶35

In view of that these two issues were decided in favour of claimants. In the light of F.I.R., chargesheet and postmortem report the accident has been proved and death occurred due to falling on hard surface has also been proved due to such accident. Nothing contrary has been proved by the Insurance Company before the learned court.

¶36

In view of above the Court finds that the learned tribunal has rightly 3

¶37

( 2025:JHHC:15198 )

¶38

passed the award. There is no illegality in the impugned award. As such this appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶39

The statutory amount deposited before this Court shall be transmitted to the learned tribunal which will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants. The awarded amount shall be disbursed to the claimants within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order if it is not disbursed as yet.

¶40

Let Trial Court Record be sent to the concerned court forthwith.

¶41

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶42

Satyarthi/-

¶43

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Chief Manager Claims Jayanta Roy v. Anita Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Chief Manager Claims Jayanta Roy v. Anita Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Nag Sarkar Vs Manish Agarwal

Kabil Mia Vs State of Jharkhand

Kanchan Choudhary Vs Neelam Kumari

Parasnath Munda Vs Union of India Represented through the General of Manager East Central Railway

Manager Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Fuliya Devi

Marsella Ekka Alias Marcela Toppo Vs Sukhmani Devi Alias Sukhmani Orain