Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Thr Its Assistant Gen Manager Las Mds Coordination Sri v v Satyanarayana Vs Ali Imam Ansari and Ors.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:31386 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013

¶3

Hamidan Bibi, wife of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari,

¶4

Saki Imam, son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari

¶5

Parwej Alam Ansari, son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, All residents of Village- Ukrid Basti, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, (Sector XII O.P.), Bokaro at present Sector XI, Qr. No.1144, B.S. City, Bokaro

¶6

… Appellants/Claimants

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. (FSNL), through its General Manager, Bokaro Steel Plant, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District- Bokaro (Owner of Dumper bearing registration No.DT-2635 FSNL)

¶9

Swapan Mitra, son of Surendra Nath Mitra, Driver, Staff No.360, FSNL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro

¶10

Permanent Address- C Block, Road No.4, Netaji Colony, Durgapur, Tauri, P.O. & P.S. Benachatti, District- Burdwan, West Bengal

¶11

Ali Imam Ansari

¶12

Md. Samiullah Ansari Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, both resident of Village Ukrid, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City (Sector XII O.P.), District- Bokaro

¶13

Taki Ansari, son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, resident of Patratu, P.S. & P.O. Patratu, District- Bokaro

¶14

Jafar Imam Ansari, son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, resident of Greater Noida, Gama-1, P.O. & P.S. Gautam Budh Nagar, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh

¶15

Juned Akhtar Alal, son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, resident of Village Tupkadih, P.O. & P.S. Jaridih, Bokaro

¶16

Sahida Parween, D/o Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, resident of Village Tupkadih, P.O. & P.S. Jaridih, Bokaro … Opposite Parties

¶17

With

¶18

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013

¶19

Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. (FSNL), a Government of India Undertaking through its Assistant General Manager (Law)/MDS Coordination Sri V.V. Satyanarayana, son of Late V. Venkata Rao, having its office at Equipment Chowk, Central Avenue, P.O. Sector-I, P.s. Bhatti Thana, Bhilai- 490 001 (Chhatisgarh) … Appellant

¶20

-Versus-

¶21

Ali Imam Ansari, son of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari

¶22

Md. Samiullah Ansari, son of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari Both resident of Village Ukrid, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City (Sector XII), DistrictBokaro

¶23

Taki Ansari, son of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari, resident of Patratu, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District- Bokaro

¶24

Jafar Imam Ansari, son of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari, resident of Greater Noida, Gama-1, Gautam Budh Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Gautam Budh Nagar, District- Noida

¶25

Juned Akhtar Alal, son of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari, resident of Village Tupkadih, P.O. & P.S. Jaridih, District- Bokaro

¶26

Sahida Parween, daughter of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari, resident of

¶27

-1-

¶28

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013

¶29

With

¶30

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013

¶31

( 2025:JHHC:31386 )

¶32

Village Tupkadih, P.O. & P.S. Jaridih, District- Bokaro … Opposite Parties

¶33

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶34

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate (In M.A.-132/13)

¶35

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (In M.A.-86/13)

¶36

Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate For the O.Ps. : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (In M.A.-132/13) Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate

¶37

15/10.10.2025 Heard Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 and Mr. Indrajit Sinha along with Ms. Puja Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013 and opposite parties in Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013.

¶38

2. Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 has been preferred challenging the part of the award dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned District Judgecum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. Claim Case No.80/2008, whereby, the learned Tribunal held the deceased as contributory negligent to the accident and on account of contributory negligence, deducted 50% from the total calculated compensation amount and awarded a meagre sum of Rs.8,57,876/- with interest rate @ 9% per annum. Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013 has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle for settingaside the said award dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶39

3. Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013, which has been preferred by the claimants submits that the claimants have filed T.M.V. Claim Case No.80/2008 alleging therein that the deceased was an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant and on 12.11.2007 at 12.15 p.m., he was going to his duty by a motorcycle and

¶40

-2-

¶41

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013

¶42

With

¶43

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013

¶44

( 2025:JHHC:31386 )

¶45

one Ram Krishna Das was also along with him. In the meantime, the offending vehicle- dumper bearing registration No.DT-2635 FSNL being driven rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of Abdul Aziz Ansari from the rear side, as a result of which, he received fatal injury and died on spot. Ram Krishna Das also received grievous injuries and as a result of the accident, his one leg and one hand had to be amputated. It was further alleged that the deceased was 57 years of age and having a monthly income of Rs.23,691 . 16/per month. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50% from the total calculated compensation amount on the ground of contributory negligence. He then submits that the chargesheet was submitted only against the driver of the dumper in question and chargesheet has not been submitted against the deceased and in view of that, it is proved that there is no contributory negligence so far as the deceased is concerned. In view of that, he submits that the entire awarded amount may kindly be directed to be paid to the claimants/appellants and the award may kindly be modified to that effect. He next submits that the learned Tribunal has not given any direction for payment of amount towards future prospect and in conventional head, only Rs.10,000/- has been directed to be paid in place of Rs.70,000/- in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . On these grounds, he submits that the award of the learned Tribunal may kindly be modified.

¶46

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner of the dumper in Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013 and opposite parties in Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 is not disputing the accident. He further

¶47

-3-

¶48

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013

¶49

With

¶50

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013

¶51

( 2025:JHHC:31386 )

¶52

submits that the deceased was negligent and in view of that, 50% liability fastened upon the owner of the dumper is not in accordance with law. He then submits that the appellants/claimants are not entitled for any compensation. He next submits that a sum of Rs.2,42,100/- has been deposited by the employer of the deceased under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which was received by the claimants. He also submits that in view of that also, the present appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. According to him, claims cannot be made for one accident under two different statutes. He further submits that preliminary objection was raised before the learned Tribunal with regard to payment made by the employer of the deceased i.e. Bokaro Steel Plant and the learned Tribunal has also taken note of that and in spite of that, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim of the claimants. He then submits that the entire salary of the deceased without deducting of the income tax amount has been considered by the learned Tribunal and in view of that also, the award is bad in law. On these grounds, he submits that the award may kindly be set-aside.

¶53

5. In reply, Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the claimants have not withdrawn any amount under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He also submits that if any cheque has been deposited by the Bokaro Steel Plant before the learned Tribunal, the onus lies on the owner of the dumper to prove that the said amount has been withdrawn by the claimants. He further submits that Ext.-4 is the pay slip of the deceased and it transpires from the salary slip that the income tax amount has already been deducted, which has been considered by the learned Tribunal. On these grounds, he submits that the arguments on

¶54

-4- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013 With

¶55

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013

¶56

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013

¶57

( 2025:JHHC:31386 )

¶58

behalf of the owner of the dumper are misconceived one.

¶59

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the impugned award as well as the Trial Court Records. It is an admitted position that the accident took place on 12.11.2007 and pursuant to that Abdul Aziz Ansari (deceased) has died on the spot. The chargesheet has been submitted only against the driver of the dumper. The chargesheet has not been submitted against the deceased and there is no finding to that effect. The learned Tribunal only on the ground of external enquiry has given finding to the effect that the deceased was also negligent, however, in light of the chargesheet submitted against the driver of the dumper, it clearly suggests that the driver of the dumper was negligent in driving the vehicle. In view of that, the contention of the learned counsel for the owner of the dumper with regard to contributory negligence is not being accepted by this Court.

¶60

7. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the dumper in question has not been able to prove by way of any documentary evidence that the claimants have withdrawn the amount of Rs.2,42,100/-, which was deposited by the Bokaro Steel Plant where the deceased was working.

¶61

8. In light of Ext.4, which is the salary slip of the deceased, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the owner of the dumper in question with regard to deduction of income tax as the salary was calculated after deduction of income tax. The calculation of salary has been made by the learned Tribunal correctly in light of Ext.-4.

¶62

9. In view of these facts and reasons, there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the owner of the dumper in question and, as such, Miscellaneous

¶63

-5- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013 With

¶64

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013

¶65

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013

¶66

( 2025:JHHC:31386 )

¶67

Appeal No.86 of 2013 is, hereby, dismissed.

¶68

10. In light of the above discussions as the chargesheet has not been submitted against the deceased and the chargesheet is only against the driver of the dumper, the Court finds that contributory negligence cannot be fastened upon the deceased and, as such, that part of the finding of the learned Tribunal of deduction of 50% from the total calculated compensation amount, is not tenable in the eyes of law.

¶69

11. Looking into the award, it transpires that the learned Tribunal has not paid any amount towards future prospect, which is mandatory in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra) and in view of that, future prospect is required to be added to the tune of 15% of the income.

¶70

12. The Court further finds force in the argument of Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing for the claimants that under the conventional head, only Rs.10,000/- has been paid, however, it should be Rs.70,000/- and 10% further at the interval of 3 years each. 13. Ext.-4 is the document, which is the salary slip of the deceased, from which, it is crystal clear that deduction of income tax has been made and, thereafter, salary has been counted by the learned Tribunal. 14. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the award is modified to the effect that the claimants will be entitled to entire compensation amount to the tune of Rs.17,15,752/-. In the said amount, 15% of the income will be further added on the future prospect. In the conventional head, only Rs.10,000/- has been paid and in view of that, in the conventional head, the claimants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- in which further 10% will be added in

¶71

-6-

¶72

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013

¶73

With

¶74

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013

¶75

( 2025:JHHC:31386 )

¶76

every 3 years.

¶77

15. The award dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned District Judgecum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. Claim Case No.80/2008 is modified to the above effect.

¶78

16. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶79

17. Consequently, Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013 is dismissed. If the statutory amount is deposited in the Registry by the appellant of Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013, the same will be transferred to the learned Tribunal and the same will be utilized in satisfying the award.

¶80

18. Both the Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

¶81

19. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.

¶82

20. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned Court forthwith.

¶83

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶84

Dated: 10^th October, 2025 Ajay/ A.F.R.

¶85

-7-