Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sector IV, B.S. City, Dist v. Sukaro Lakda

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20490

3. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 10.12.2020 made by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. Case No. 46 of 2008.

4. M.A. No. 33 of 2011 is instituted by the Insurance Company and M.A. No. 63 of 2011 by the mother of the deceased Gopal Kachhap, who died in a vehicular accident on 09.02.2008.

5. Mr Lal, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in M.A. No. 33 of 2011) submitted that in this case Gopal Kachhap was driving the motorcycle and it was on account of his rash and negligent driving that the motorcycle dashed against a pole. Even an F.I.R. was lodged against the deceased. He submitted that under such circumstances, there is no question of his mother claiming any compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

6. Mr Lal further submitted that there is evidence that Gopal Kachhap was driving the offending motorcycle with two pillion riders. Further there is no evidence that Gopal Kachhap had any licence to drive the motorcycle. Mr Lal submitted that in these circumstances, no compensation could have been awarded to Gopal’s mother.

7. Mr Alok Lal submitted that, under the insurance policy, liability for the owner's demise was limited to Rs. 1,00,000/-. He submitted that in any event, considering that Gopal was himself negligent, this should have been regarded as a case of ‘contributory negligence’ and at least 30% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal should have been deducted. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20490

8. In support of this contention, Mr. Lal relied on Manish Narayan v. Seem Bourin, 2009 ACJ 2271 (Jharkhand), and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Mohli, M.A. No. 377 of 2019 decided on 6th of July 2023.

9. Mr Diwakar Jha, the learned counsel for the claimant who is respondent in M.A. No. 33 of 2011 and appellant in M.A. No. 63 of 2011, submitted that there was no error in the impugned award except that less compensation was awarded. He submitted that no compensation has been awarded towards future prospects, loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium. He submitted that the total compensation should have been Rs. 5,63,600/- and not only Rs. 2,08,000/- as held by the Tribunal.

10. Mr Diwakar Jha also relied upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, to submit that at the highest a pay and recover order could have been made in this matter. He further submitted that since the Insurance Company was alleging breach of the terms and conditions of its insurance policy, the burden was on the Insurance Company to establish the same and it could be unreasonable to expect the widowed mother of deceased Gopal to produce documents like licence, etc.

11. The rival contentions now fall for determination.

12. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that Gopal Kachhap was the driver of the motorcycle which was involved in the accident and in which Gopal Kachhap died on the spot. Though the F.I.R. lodged Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20490 by the informant did refer to Gopal Kachhap being the driver of the offending motorcycle, there is no evidence to show that Gopal was indeed the driver of the vehicle and not merely travelling on the offending motorcycle.

13. In the claim petition filed by Gopal’s mother, the initial version referred to Gopal driving the motorcycle, and even rashly and negligently. However, this appears to have been a case of rash and negligent drafting of the claim petition. Perhaps the draftsman merely copied the wording of the FIR. Fortunately, after the mistake was realised, way back in the year 2009, after securing the leave of the Tribunal on 17.12.2009, this part of the pleading was suitably amended, and the portion which suggested that Gopal Kachhap was the driver of the motorcycle and further that he drove the same rashly and negligently was deleted.

14. The Tribunal, perhaps, did not notice this amendment and has based its entire finding solely on the F.I.R. In this case, the claimant examined two witnesses, namely herself and another witness. Neither of them referred to Gopal being the driver of the motorcycle.

15. The respondents may have raised several pleas but did not bother to examine any witnesses. Therefore, the finding that Gopal was the driver of the insured motorcycle and further, that he died on account of his own rashness and negligence is vitiated by perversity and the same is unsustainable. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20490

16. Once this finding is displaced, the insurance company's contention that no compensation is payable or that there is contributory negligence will fail. The decisions relied upon by Mr Lal, would also not apply. Such contentions are therefore rejected.

17. Further, the Insurance Company’s case that Gopal was driving the motorcycle with two other pillion riders will also fail. If Gopal was not the driver but only a passenger on the motorcycle, then Gopal’s mother cannot be denied compensation on this ground.

18. Insofar as the issue of driving licence is concerned, firstly, it was for the Insurance Company to have at least discharged the initial onus. Secondly, even this issue becomes irrelevant once it is held that Gopal was not driving the motorcycle.

19. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

20. Insofar as the claimant’s appeal is concerned, some enhancement is due. The Tribunal has accepted Gopal’s monthly income at Rs. 3,000/-. This means that Gopal’s yearly income would be Rs. 36,000/-. At least a 40% enhancement is due towards future prospects. This means that Gopal’s annual income should be taken at Rs. 50,400/-.

21. Since Gopal was a bachelor, a 50% deduction is due for his personal expenses. This means that his annual income may be taken at Rs. 25,200/-. Considering his age, the correct multiplier would be

18. Based on all this, the compensation for dependency would come Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20490 to Rs. 4,53,600/-. To this amount, an addition of Rs. 70,000/- is required, comprising Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium. This takes the compensation to Rs. 5,23,600/-.

22. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of only Rs. 2,08,000/-. Accordingly, this compensation amount is liable to be enhanced to Rs. 5,23,600/-. Interest at 6% from the date of institution of the claim petition is maintained.

23. The Claimant’s appeal, i.e. M.A. No. 63 of 2011, is allowed to the above extent.

24. Mr Lal states that in terms of this Court’s order dated 12.06.2017, an amount of Rs. 75,000/- has been deposited before the Tribunal. Mr Lal further stated that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited in this Court by way of statutory deposit.

25. The Claimant Sukaro Lakda is now allowed to withdraw the compensation amount deposited before the Tribunal and the statutory amount deposited before this Court by providing necessary identity documents and bank details.

26. The Registry of this Court and the Tribunal must, as soon as possible, through regular banking channels, facilitate the transfer of the deposited amount, together with any interest that shall have accrued thereon, into the Claimant’s account.

27. Mr Diwakar Jha must render all assistance to the Claimant since he was appointed as Amicus Curiae in this matter. In addition, the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20490 Member Secretary of JHALSA and the Secretary of the concerned DLSA must also render all assistance to ensure compensation amount reaches the Claimant at the earliest.

28. The enhanced compensation amount must be deposited by the Insurance Company in this Court within four weeks from today together with interest as awarded. This shall be with intimation to Mr Diwakar Jha, the learned Amicus Curiae.

29. Once the enhanced amount is deposited, Sukaro Lakda, the claimant, is allowed to withdraw the same by following the procedure indicated above.

30. If the compensation amount is not deposited within four weeks from today, Mr Diwakar Jha is given the liberty to mention the matter.

31. This Court thanks Mr Diwakar Jha for the assistance rendered in this matter.

32. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. IAs, if any pending in these appeals, will not survive and are disposed of. July 10, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 13.07.2026 (M. S. Sonak, C.J.)