Jharkhand High Court
The Branch Manager vs Yashoda Devi W/O Late Naresh Saw on 3 August, 2022
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.416 of 2019
----
1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, 3, Middleton Street, P.O. & P.S. Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkata 700 071, West Bengal.
2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Hindustan Building, Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East 831001.
3. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Near Civil Court, P.O. & P.S. Sadar Hazaribag, District Hazaribag 825301. Appellant Nos.1 to 3, duly represented through its Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Jharkhand Legal Cell, Kutchery Road, Post Office G.P.O., Police Station Kotwali, District Ranchi 834001.
... Appellants
-versus-
1. Yashoda Devi W/o Late Naresh Saw
2. Bablu Kumar Saw S/o Late Naresh Saw
3. Anita Kumari D/o Late Naresh Saw
4. Sunita Kumari D/o Late Naresh Saw (Applicants/Claimants No.2 to 4 are minors and represented through their mother and natural guardian applicant/respondent no.1 Yasoda Devi). All are residents of village Jugra, P.O. Cheppa Kalan, P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribag.
5. Kailash Giri S/o Sukhdeo Giri, resident of Village Bandhuwa Ichak, P.O. & P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag.
6. Pradeep Mehta S/o Yugal Kishore Mehta, Resident of Village Gunja, P.O. & P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Appellants: Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents :
----
4/ 03.08.2022 I.A. No. 7886 of 2019
1. There is a delay of 94 days in filing this appeal. Through this interlocutory application, appellants have prayed for condoning the delay in filing this appeal.
2. After going through the averments made in this interlocutory application, I find that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in filing this appeal at paragraphs 3 to 6 of the interlocutory application. I am inclined to allow this interlocutory application. Delay of 94 days in preferring this appeal is condoned.
3. This interlocutory application stands allowed.
M.A. No. 416 of 21094. This appeal is being taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.
5. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, -: 2 :- Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal at Hazaribag in Motor Accident Claim Case No.65 of 2013.
6. The only ground taken by the appellants-Insurance Company is that the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with the liability to pay compensation, considering the fact that the deceased was gratuitous passenger in a goods carrying vehicle and the road permit for the said vehicle was not produced. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has also concluded that the deceased was gratuitous passenger and they were not covered under the policy. He submits that when the aforesaid finding has been arrived by the Tribunal, Tribunal could not have directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. As per him, the Insurance Company should have directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the amount of compensation. On this limited ground, Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
7. To decide the aforesaid issue, this Court feels that it is not necessary to call for the Lower Court Records also.
8. I have gone through the judgment passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has come to a specific finding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and was not covered by the said policy. After holding the same, Tribunal assessed the compensation amount of Rs.6,60,625/-. Tribunal, thereafter, directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, as admittedly the vehicle was duly insured with the appellants.
9. I find that the said direction is in consonance with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaraj versus Rajendra and another reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432.
10. Since the gratuitous passenger is not covered and the vehicle is, admittedly, goods carrying vehicle and was insured, Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In this case quantum is not under challenge, thus, I find that no illegality in the aforesaid judgment. This appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. The statutory amount deposited by the appellants-Insurance Company at the time of filing of this appeal before this Court is directed to be refunded to the appellant.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02