Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company Limited ... vs Kamla Devi And Ors on 7 October, 2014
Author: D. N. Upadhyay
Bench: D. N. Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No.91 of 2013
National Insurance Company Limited. .......... Appellant.
Versus
Kamla Devi & Ors. ......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
For the Appellant : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s. Anil Kumar and
Ananda Sen, Advocates
08/07.10.2014: This appeal has been preferred by National Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated dated 31st January, 2013 passed by Principal District JudgecumMotor Accident Claim Tribunal, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with M.V. Claim Case No.28 of 2005, whereby the appellant Insurance Company has been directed to satisfy the awarded amount.
The fact, in brief, is that a Commander Jeep, bearing Registration No.JH07A4574, was carrying Baratis, including the deceased. When the said vehicle reached near village Barshidag within Chandwa Police Station, it got turned turtle, as a result the occupants, including the deceased, sustained injuries. On the way to hospital, Mukteshwar Mahto succumbed to injuries. After the death of the deceased, the claimants had filed application for grant of compensation and it was, accordingly, allowed and hence this appeal.
The appellantInsurance Company has assailed the impugned judgment only on two counts. The vehicle was registered as a private vehicle, but it was hired for carrying Baratis and, therefore, the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms of policy. Since the owner has violated the terms of policy by making commercial use of the vehicle, the appellant is not responsible to indemnify the liability. The next point which the appellant has raised is the payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim application.
It is pointed out that the matter was pending for a long time before Permanent Lok Adalat and the issues were framed only on 27th July, 2011 when the matter came back to the Tribunal from the 2 court of Permanent Lok Adalat.
Counsel appearing for the respondents have opposed the prayer and submitted that the vehicle was used in Barati of nephew of the registered owner and the issue has well been discussed in Para11 of the impugned judgment. So far as the payment of interest is concerned, the claimants are entitled to receive interest on awarded amount from the date of filing of the application.
I have gone through the impugned judgment from which it appears that learned Tribunal has elaborately discussed the issue with regard to use of the vehicle on hire. It is apparent from the impugned judgment and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties that the appellantInsurance Company has not led any evidence in support of its contention that the vehicle was plying on hire at the relevant point of time, rather the appellant has based its argument on the basis of crossexamination done by them. Since the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the issues, I do not feel inclined to make any interference on that issues.
So far as the payment of interest on the awarded amount is concerned, it appears that the matter was not pending due to fault on the part of the appellant, rather the same was inadvertently referred to Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement. The matter, which was subjudiced before a Tribunal, should not have been sent to Permanent Lok Adalat for any conciliation and the Permanent Lok Adalat should not have kept the record with it for such a long period.
Since the delay did not occur due to any fault on the part of the appellant, I feel it is desirable to modify the award and it is directed that the interest @ 6% shall be paid from the date of framing of the issue i.e. 27th July, 2011 till the date of final payment of awarded amount.
With the above modification in the impugned judgment and award, this appeal stands partly allowed.
(D. N. Upadhyay, J.) Sanjay/