Jharkhand High Court
The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz ... vs Joshna Singho Alias Joshna Devi Alias ... on 21 November, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.282 of 2014
The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, G.E.
Plaza Air Port Road, Yerwada, Pune411006 T/A Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited, Ranchi Branch, P.O. Ranchi Main, P.S. Chutia
DistrictRanchi (Jharkhand) through Kaushal Kishroe Mishra, Senior Executive,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi Branch ...... Appellant
Versus
1.Joshna Singo @ Joshna Devi @ Joshna Singh (aged about 38 years) W/o Sri Manik Singh @ Manik Sinha @ Manik Sindha, resident of Village Gudrihat, Malpahari, P.O. & P.S. Pakur (Malpahari), DistrictPakur (Jharkhand)
2. Ramesh Prasad Yadav s/o Sohan Lal Yadav @ Sohan Yadav, resident of VillageMahalbari, P.O & P.S. Dagarwa, District Purnia (Bihar, PIN854326 .............................................................................................. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY For the Appellant : Mr. Basav Chatterjee, Advocte For the Respondents : NONE Order No.05 st Dated: 21 November, 2015 This appeal has been filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 5 th May, 2014 passed by learned District Judge1 cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur in connection with M.A.C.T. Case No.06 of 2012 whereby total compensation of Rs.3,20,000/ has been directed to be paid to the claimant in lieu of death of her son Surojit Singh @ Surjit Singho.
2. The facts, in brief, is that deceased Surojit Singh @ Surjit Singho was returning with his father Manik Singh on a motorcycle from village Ahiran. When they reached near Katan Bridge at village Chanchki, a truck bearing registration no. WB 73B/2175, being driven rashly and negligently hit deceased Surojit Singh @ Surjit Singho who was standing near the side of road. Apprehending danger, father of the deceased signaled the driver to stop the truck but he did not stop and after causing dash to the deceased fled away. Surojit Singh @ Surjit Singho died at the spot. The matter was reported to the police and a case being Pakur (M) P.S. Case No.10 of 2010 dated 25.11.2010 u/s 279 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Mother of the deceased filed claim application for grant of compensation and after recording evidence and admitting documents, impugned judgment and award has been passed.
3. Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle produced by the claimant is not 2. genuine. The appellantinsurance company has taken steps to bring report in this regard but the D.T.O., Pakur did not submit required report. Again, the matter was agitated before the R.T.I. Appellate Authority, but it remain unattended. The appellant tried its best to bring actual fact before the court but it was not cooperated by the department concerned. Furthermore, at the end of the judgment under the heading 'ORDERED' the Tribunal has directed to pay Rs.3,20,000 to the claimant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. from 07.01.2012 but the Tribunal has not indicated that interim compensation of Rs.50,000/ already paid to the claimant is to be deducted from the total compensation of Rs.3,20,000/. The Tribunal has not deducted the expenses to be incurred by the deceased had be been alive. There are contradictions in the F.I.R. and the statement given before the Tribunal regarding manner of accident. The Tribunal has committed error by not considering all these aspects of the case of the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set asides.
4. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent.
5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. So far deduction of half amount from the total income of the deceased is concerned, that was not required to be done in the case at hand because the deceased was aged about 1617 years and notional income has been assessed to the extent of Rs.20,000/ per annum. Admittedly, the deceased was minor at the time of his death. It further transpires from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has ignored to award amount on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate etc.
6. Contention of the claimant that the licence produced by the claimant was not genuine but the fact remains that the appellant has failed to bring on record any evidence that the driving licence produced by the claimant was forged and fake. It is true that certain attempt has been taken by the appellantinsurance company for bringing the correct situation before the Court but the appellant was not cooperated by the department concerned. Had it been so, the appellant has not taken further steps to bring on record that the driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle produced by the claimant was forged and fake. In course of dictation, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a petition was filed before the Tribunal to give direction to the concerned D.T.O. to produce relevant document but no favourable order was passed. Again, it is necessary to observe that against any such order passed by learned Tribunal, no 3. revision has been preferred by the appellant for seeking legal remedy. At this stage, these arguments are not tenable and that cannot be given weightage. From perusal of the award it appears that the Tribunal has more or less directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.3,20,000/. In para 15 of the judgment it is indicated that interim compensation paid to the claimant u/s 140 of the M.V. Act shall be deducted from the total compensation amount. The only mistake which is appearing in the concluding part of the order is that the Tribunal has directed the insurance company to pay total sum of Rs.3,20,000/ as compensation and in that portion it is not indicated that amount of Rs.50,000/ paid to the claimant towards interim compensation shall be deducted. Be that as it may, the insurance company is directed to pay balance sum of Rs.2,70,000/ with interest @ 6% per anum from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation of the amount and award shall be satisfied by presenting a cheque drawn in favour of the claimant and the cheque shall be deposited on or before 12th December, 2015 on which date National Lok Adalat is likely to be held. I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the appellant.
(D. N. Upadhyay, J.) NKC