Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
2025:JHHC:19488
--1-- M.A. No. 297 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
M.A. No. 297 of 2017
---- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, having its office at 4th Floor, Chintamani Avenue, Western Express Highway, Near Virmani Industrial Estate, Goregon East, Mumbai, 400063 and regional office at Himalaya House, 8th Floor, 38-B, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071 through Jitendra Kumar Pandit, son of Rajendra Pandit, Associate Segment – Legal Claim (insured of the LP Truck No. WB – 23 – 9684)
.... Appellant -- Versus -- 1. Smt. Jamuni Devi, wife of Late Fagu Das 2. Vikash Kumar Suman, son of Late Fagu Das 3. Arvind Kumar das, son of Late Fagu Das (being minor represented through natural guardian, his mother Jamuni Devi, Claimant No.1) 4. Deleted vide order dated 25.06.2025 5. Deleted vide order dated 25.06.2025 All are resident of village – Kustore Colony, No. E-10, PO – Kenduadih, PS – Kenduadih, District – Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 6. Ajit Kumar Agarwal, son of Sikander Prasad Agarwal, resident of 72A/, Akhil Mistry Lane, Amharstreet, Raja Ram, Mohan Sarani, PO and PS – Raja Mohan Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700009 (Owner of LP Truck No. WB – 23 – 9684)
.... Respondents
---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant
:- Ms. Tiyasha, Advocate
:- Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 :- Mr. Saibal Kr. Laik, Advocate
---- 12/16.07.2025 Ms. Tiyasha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in light of earlier two orders substituted steps of notice upon respondent No.6 by way of paper publication has been made and the affidavit to that effect has been filed annexing the paper cutting. She submits in view of that notice upon the respondent No.6 may kindly be
2025:JHHC:19488
--2-- M.A. No. 297 of 2017
accepted as validly served.
In light of affidavit, notice upon the respondent No.6 is effected now, however, appearance has not been made on behalf of respondent No.6.
Mr. Laik, learned counsel is present on behalf of the claimants, who are respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have already been expunged as they have already left for their heavenly abode.
Heard Mrs. Swati Shalini along with Ms. Tiyasha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Saibal Kr. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are also the claimants, however, they have been expunged as they have left for their heavenly abode and they are being represented by respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Notice upon the respondent No.6 has already been effected. 6. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 27.05.2016 passed by learned District Judge – VII-cum-MACT, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No.187/2014 whereby he has been pleased to allow the award of Rs.73,14,420/- from the date of filing of the case i.e. on 28.06.2014 with 6% interest per annum and in absence of payment within the aforesaid period further 9% has been directed to be charged after 60 days of the award if not complied with.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the claim application has been filed by the claimants alleging that on 05.03.2014 at about 12:00 PM at night, the deceased Fagu Das was traveling by his motorcycle bearing No. JH-10AA-4799 and when he
2025:JHHC:19488
--3-- M.A. No. 297 of 2017
reached near Bharat Petrol Pump, Kenduadih Bazar, Dhanbad to Bokaro road a truck bearing No. WB – 23 – 9684 dashed the deceased Fagu Das and his motorcycle as a result of which deceased received grievous injuries and was shifted to PMCH, Dhanbad but owing to his serious condition he was referred to Central Hospital, Saraidhela, Dhanbad where during the course of his treatment he died on 13.03.2014 on account of said road accidental injuries. In connection with the aforesaid road accident of deceased Fagu Das, Kenduadih P.S. Case No.40/14 has been registered under Sections 279, 427, 337, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code against the driver of truck bearing No. WB – 23 – 9684. She submits that in this background the said claim case has been filed and the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the same claim case and awarded the aforesaid amount. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the registration of the said vehicle was valid up to 29.03.2010 and the accident took place later on in the year 2014. She submits in view of that the vehicle was not authorized to ply on the road and in spite of that it has plied and accident took place and in view of that the liability cannot be fastened upon the insurance company. She further submits that the deceased was a government employee and income tax has also not been properly deducted by the learned Tribunal in calculating the income of the deceased. She further submits that if the award is not complied within 60 days 9% penal interest has been imposed which is further not in accordance with law. On these grounds, she submits that the award may kindly be set aside and modified. She further submits that in light of the order dated 26.03.2018 a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- has been deposited
2025:JHHC:19488
--4-- M.A. No. 297 of 2017
out of which Rs.50,00,000/- in terms of the said order has been disbursed in favour of the claimants.
Mr. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the learned Court has properly adjudicated the case on evidence on record. He submits that the appellant herein has appeared before the learned Court, however, neither examined any witness nor brought any documentary evidence on the record. He further submits that so far the income is concerned that has been decided by issue No.9 by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has deducted the amount of income tax to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter has calculated the same. He further submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the order so far the interest is concerned and the document of the offending vehicle was brought on record which was found in order and thereafter the award has been passed and in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that the amount under the conventional head has been provided on the lesser side and according to him, it should be at least Rs.70,000/- in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, however, only Rs.30,000/- has been allowed.
In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record including the trial court record. From the trial court record, it transpires that registration certificate, the motor vehicle tax fitness certificate and permit have been found to be correct. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant with regard to the registration certificate of
2025:JHHC:19488
--5-- M.A. No. 297 of 2017
the truck in question is not being accepted by the Court in view of the fact that the fitness certificate has been further issued by the Government of West Bengal by the competent authority and the permit is also there and further the certificate of fitness of the vehicle is there which clearly suggests that the authority concerned has allowed the truck to ply on the road and pursuant thereto the insurance company has also issued the insurance policy for the said vehicle and at the time of accident the policy was existing. In view of that point of argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant with regard to the registration is not being accepted by the Court as the documents are there which clearly suggests that the authority concerned has allowed the vehicle to ply on the road.
Issue No.9 was framed by the learned Tribunal to decide the income of the deceased. The salary certificate has been marked as Exhibit – 1 wherefrom it transpires that Rs.1,000/- per month was being deducted under the head of income tax and that learned Court while calculating the same has deducted a sum of Rs.10,000/- which further suggests that in light of well settled principle the deduction on the salary with regard to the income tax has already been made. Thus, this point is also not accepted by this Court and the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not accepted being on this score also.
So far interest is concerned, the Court finds that normally 7.5% normal interest are being allowed, however, the learned Court has only allowed 6% and in case of non-payment 9% has been allowed. Further under the conventional head only Rs.30,000/- has been allowed and in view of that the interest part is further not required to be modified by
2025:JHHC:19488
--6-- M.A. No. 297 of 2017
this Court.
In view of the above, the Court finds that there is no perversity in the award of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 14. Let the trial court record be sent back to the learned Tribunal forth with. 15. The further amount in terms of the award shall be deposited by the insurance company before the learned Tribunal within four weeks. The award shall be fully satisfied in favour of the claimants on proper verification within 6 weeks. In the final payment, the amount already received by the claimants shall be deducted by the learned Tribunal. 16. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company before this Court shall be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal which will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants. 17. So far the interest is concerned that will be calculated in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal and Others versus U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/
A.F.R.