Jharkhand High Court
M/S Interlink Coal Pvt Ltd Thr vs Smt. Sudha Devi & Ors on 25 January, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 AAC 1573 (JHAR), 2010 A I H C 3490, 2010 (2) AIR JHAR R 560, (2010) 2 JCR 278 (JHA), (2010) 4 TAC 660, (2010) 3 ACC 410, (2010) 3 CIVLJ 344
Author: M. Y. Eqbal
Bench: M. Y. Eqbal, R. R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. Nos. 317 and 288 of 2007
M/s Interlink Coal Pvt. Ltd. Appellant in MA No.317/2007.
Sudha Devi & ors. Appellants in MA No.288/2007
Versus
Smt. Sudha Devi & ors ... Respondents in MA No.317/2007
Siya Ram Singh & ors Respondents in MA No.288/2007
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
------
For the Appellant in MA 317/2007 : Mr. S. Arun
For the Appellants in MA 288/2007 : Mr. A.K.Lal
For the Respondents in MA 317/2007 :M/s. A.K.Lal , M.Kumar
and K.L..Ojha
For the Respondents in MA 288/2007 Mr. S. Arun
------
25.1.2010. These two appeals, one by the owner of the vehicle and another by the claimants, have been filed against the same judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.291/2004. MA No.317/2007 has been filed by the appellant M/s Interlink Coal Pvt. Ltd., who is the owner of Santro car, whereas MA No.288/2007 has been filed by the appellants, who are claimants.
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
The claimants filed the aforementioned compensation case on account of death of one Krishna Kant Tiwari in a motor vehicle accident. It was alleged that the accident took place as two vehicles i.e. truck No.BR 01G 6382 and Santro car collided against each other from the opposite direction. Both the vehicles were driven in a very rash and negligent manner. The deceased was aged about 43 years and said to have employed in Bihar Post and Telegraph Cooperative society and was earning Rs.6194/- per month. The deceased was driver in the Santro car and was going from Ranchi to Jamshedpur. The Tribunal assessed the compensation to the extent of Rs.5,64,580/- but on the issue of liability the Tribunal held that since the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles, the compensation amount shall be paid in equal share.
23. The appellant, who is the owner of Santro car, assailed the impugned judgment and award on two grounds. Firstly it was contended that because of rash and negligent driving of the truck the accident took place, the owner and insurer of the truck shall be held liable for payment of compensation. It was contended that even if there is negligent on the part of the driver of Santro car, that being a lighter vehicle and apportion of the compensation amount ought to have been paid by the owner and insurer of Santro car. Secondly, it was contended that the Santro car was duly insured with the respondent Insurance Company and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law in directing the owner of Santro car to pay the compensation amount.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurer of the Santro car, has not disputed the fact that Santro car was duly insured with the Insurance Company. In our view, therefore, whatever may be the liability against the owner of Santro car is to be paid by the Insurance Company.
5. Hence, after hearing the counsel for the parties, we hold that the liability in between the truck and the Santro car should have been apportioned in the ratio of 75% and 25%. The truck being a heavier vehicle is to be saddled with the liability to the extent of 75% and the Santro car being the lighter vehicle is to be saddled with the liability of 25%.
6. For the reasons aforesaid MA No.317/2007 is allowed and the judgment and award is modified to the extent that out of the total compensation assessed by the Tribunal, 25% shall be paid by the insurer of Santro car and 75% shall be paid by the insurer of the truck.
7. In MA No.288/2007 the appellants, who are the claimants, have prayed for enhancement of compensation amount. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that besides the monthly salary which the deceased was earning, he had also agricultural income to the extent of Rs.30,000/- per annum. It is contended that while assessing compensation the agricultural income ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It was further contended that the interest on the compensation amount ought to have been awarded @ 9% instead of 7%.
38. From the impugned judgment, it appears that the Tribunal after considering the entire evidence has recorded a finding that no cogent evidence was adduced by the claimants to show that the deceased was also having agricultural income from cultivation work. The Tribunal further scrutinized the evidence adduced by the claimants and came to a conclusive finding on the earning of the deceased and accordingly compensation was assessed to the extent of Rs.5,64,580/-. We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. We further hold that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
9. Hence, MA No.288/2007 having no merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J) R. R. Prasad, J.
(R. R. Prasad, J) Raman/A.F.R.