The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.205 of 2016 The National Insurance Company Limited, 19, R.N. Mukherjee Street, P.O. R.N. Mukherjee Road, P.S. Lal Bazar, District- Kolkata (West Bengal), PIN- 700001 through its legal cell, Ranchi, P.O.- GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi … … Appellant Versus 1. Purnima Devi, Wife of Late Parmanand Pandit. 2. Pramila Kumari, Daughter of Late Parmanand Pandit. 3. Urmila Kumari, Daughter of Late Parmanand Pandit. 4. Aasha Kumari, Daughter of Late Parmanand Pandit. 2, 3 & 4 being minors are represented through Respondent No.1, Purnima Devi who is their mother and natural guardian. 5. Bimla Devi, Wife of Shankar Pandit. All residents of Village- Tapsi, P.S. Jama, P.O. Bagjhopa, District- Dumka. …Respondents/Plaintiffs/ Claimants. 6. Rajkumar Changlani, Son of Late Kimatmal Changlani, Resident of Srima Apartment, P- 63, Senhati Colony, P.O. & P.S. Behasa, District- Kolkata- 700034 (West Bengal). 7. Battu Yadav, Son of Lakshmi Yadav, Resident of 51, T.C. Road, P.O. & P.S. Nawalipur, District- 24 Pargana (West Bengal) .. … … Respondents With C.O. No.3 of 2023 1. Purnima Devi, aged 36 years wife of Late Parmanand Pandit, residence of village – Tapsi, P.O. – Bagjhopa, P.S. – Jama, Subdivision & District – Dumka (Jharkhand) 2. Parmila Kumari 3. Urmila Kumari 4. Aasha Kumari 2 – 4 are minor daughters of late Parmanand Pandit 5. Bimla Devi w/o Shankar Pandit All resident of Vill – Tapsi, P.S. – Jama, P.O. Bagjhopa, Subdivision & District – Dumka … …
Legal Reasoning
1. Rajkumar Changlani son of Late Kimat Lal Changlani, resident of Srima Apartment, P-63, Senhati Colony, P.O & P.S- Behasa, District- Kolkata- 700034 (W.B), .. ..Opposite Party No. 1/Respondent 2. Battu Yadav, son of Lakshmi Yadav, resident of 51, T.C Road, P.O & P.S- Nawalpur, District- 24 Pargana (West Bengal) … Opposite Party No. 2/ Respondent 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, 19, R.N. Mukharjee Street, P.O- R. N. Mukharjee Road, P.S -Lal Bazar, District- Kolkata (West Bengal), pin-700001 Through its legal cell, Ranchi, P.O – G.P.O, P.S- Kotwali … Respondents … --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For Insurance company : - Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For claimants :- Mr. Tapeshwar Nath Mishra, Advocate For owner of vehicle :- Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate For Driver of the vehicle - None. 19/31.07.2024 --- Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The records reveal that Battu Yadav-the driver of the vehicle has also entered appearance by filing Vakalatnama but no one has appeared on his behalf. 3. This appeal has been filed against the order/award dated 16.01.2016 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 16 of 2012 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal - Cum - District & Additional Sessions Judge – III, Dumka, whereby the claim was allowed in favour of the claimants to the extent of Rs.20,61,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost and the appellant was directed to pay the same after deducting Rs.50,000/- paid earlier under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim within 45 days and in case of default, a penal interest @ 18% per annum has been levied. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment by stating that huge amount has been awarded under conventional head, although future prospects have not been awarded. He has submitted that the rate of interest is also excessive inasmuch as 12% interest from the date of filing of claim till payment has been awarded. The payment was directed to be made with interest within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which a penal interest rate of 18% per annum would be imposed. The learned counsel submits that this award of interest is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal and others Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, though a photocopy of the driving licence was produced by the claimants, and the driver did not participate in the 2 proceedings. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the photocopy of the driving licence, it was valid till 06.06.2007, and the date of accident is 02.10.2008. The learned counsel submits that the learned court did not properly appreciate the materials on record, and therefore, the liability as fixed by the impugned judgment calls for interference. 6. A cross-objection, C.O. No. 3 of 2023, has been filed on behalf of the claimants, challenging the quantum of compensation. It is the case of the claimants that there was sufficient evidence to show that the deceased had an income of Rs.12,000 to 15,000 per month from his own business, for which he held a shop license. However, in spite of that, the learned court has arbitrarily taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.9,000/- per month and calculated the compensation accordingly. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has challenged the impugned judgment on account of fixation of the income of the deceased and refusal to grant future prospects. He also submitted that expenses on account of treatment were not considered. The learned counsel has submitted that on account of improper application of law with regard to quantum of compensation, the compensation amount be enhanced. 8. The learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle submitted that the driving license was duly renewed, and had the insurance company sent the photocopy of the driving license for verification, it would come to light about its renewal. He submits that the learned court has observed that the insurance company did not bring any evidence on record to show that the license of the driver was not valid or that he was not competent to drive that heavy vehicle like the offending truck. The learned counsel submits that he is not aware as to why the driver did not participate in the proceedings, but so far as the owner of the truck is concerned, he also did not participate in the proceeding. He submits that the matter be remanded back and the court may still get the driving license verified through the insurance company and appropriate compensation be fixed so that the grievance of all the 3 parties is redressed and compensation is fixed in accordance with law. By the impugned order, the court has fixed the liability on the insurance company as well as the owner and driver of the vehicle and the liability has been fixed as joint and several. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the owner of the vehicle as well as the driver did not appear before the court concerned to contest the case. Further, the claimants had produced a photocopy of the driving license and the learned court has taken into consideration the fact that the insurance company did not take any steps to get the driving license verified from the competent authority or to bring on record any evidence with regard to the claim that the driving license was not valid or vague. It further appears that the owner of the vehicle who has appeared before this Court claims that the driver had a valid license but such verification cannot be done by this Court. 10. This Court further finds that the claimants also have grievance regarding quantum of compensation and apparently from the impugned order, no compensation has been awarded so far as the future prospects are concerned, and further the appellant is also aggrieved by the amount awarded under conventional head. 11. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be remanded back for fresh consideration enabling the parties to adduce additional evidence in connection with the legality and validity of the driving license. The entitlement of compensation of the claimants is not in dispute but since the matter is being remanded, the quantum of compensation is also required to be reconsidered on the basis of the materials already on record and in the light of the various judgements which may be relied upon by the parties including the judgment passed in the case of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi” reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 12. In order to enable the learned court to pass fresh judgement in the light of the aforesaid observations, the impugned judgement dated 4 16.01.2016 passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No.60/2012 by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No.III cum District and Additional Sessions Judge III, Dumka is set aside. 13. The liability has been fixed by the impugned order as joint and several liability of the driver and the owner of the vehicle, and the appellant insurance company has been directed to pay and then recover. As per the impugned judgement also, the entitlement of compensation to the claimants is not in dispute. Before this Court also, the entitlement of compensation of the claimants is not in dispute but the quantum of compensation is in dispute. In such circumstances, the liability amongst the driver, the owner and the insurance company will be subject to the final adjudication of the case after considering the additional evidence as may be produced by the parties. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant is directed to be remitted to the learned Tribunal. 14. The parties to appear before the learned Tribunal on 21st October, 2024 at 11.00 am. 15. Upon their appearance, the learned court is directed to proceed and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since the accident is of the year 2008, all endeavours should be made for the purposes of expeditious disposal of the case. 16. The appeal and the cross objection are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 17. Let this order be communicated to the concerned Tribunal through FAX/e-mail. 18. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the Advocate of the driver of the vehicle namely Battu Yadav, who has filed his appearance through Vakalatnama. Saurav/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5