Jharkhand High Court
M/A.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Benu Karmakar & Ors. on 19 February, 2014
Author: D.N. Upadhyay
Bench: D.N.Upadhyay
1
Appeal from Original Order No. 410 of 2006
Against the judgment and award dated 2.8.2006 passed by Sri R.K.
Jumnani, XXth Additional Judicial Commissioner cum Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Claim Case No. 72 of 1996.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd .... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt Benu Kamakar
2. Miss Tanushree Karmakar
3. Miss Anu Shree Karamakar
4. Miss Rupa Shree Karmakar
5. Prasad Pradhan ...... Respondents
For the appellant : Mr. G.C.Jha
For the respondents 1 to : Ms Nutan Sharma/N.K.Jaiswal.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
Date of CAV : 16.1.2014 Pronounced on 19/2/2014
D. N. Upadhyay, J. This Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant against the judgment and award dated 2.8.2006 passed
by Learned Addl. Judl. Commissioner cum Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Ranchi, in connection with Claim case no 72 of 1996
whereby claimants respondents no.1 to 4 have been directed to be
paid compensation to the tune of Rs 5,22,000/- with simple interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from 6.12.2003 till the date of actual
payment. The tribunal has further directed to distribute the awarded
amount and directed the appellant to pay four separate cheques in
the name of respective claimants, according to their shares, within
sixty days from the date of said judgment. The said compensation
amount is subject to deduction of ad interim compensation already
paid to the claimants. The appellant has been permitted to recover
the said amount from the vehicle owner .
2
2. According to the claim application filed by the
respondents no.1 to 4, facts of the case, in brief, is that on 25.2.1988,
the deceased Mantulal Karmakar, husband of respondent no.1, met
with an accident near Urdu Library, Main Road Ranchi. The
offending vehicle bearing registration no. BPV 9019 caused dash to
said Mantu Lal Karmakar as a result of which, he sustained injuries
and was removed to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi, and from there to
Nagarmul Modi Sewa Sadan where he died on 01.03.1988. The
matter was reported to Hindpirhi Police Station where-after Hindpirhi
PS No. 129 of 1988 dated 25.2.1988 under section 279/337 IPC was
registered. The Police after due investigation submitted charge sheet
no 29 of 1988 dated 12.5.1988 ( GR No. 548 of 1988) under sections
279/338 IPC.
Smt Benu Karmakar, widow of late Mantulal
Karmakar for herself and on behalf of her three minor daughters
( respondents no. 2 to 4) filed a petition dated 10.6.1996 under
section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was registered as
Compensation Case No. 72 of 1996, for getting ad interim relief of
Rs.50,000/- ( rupees fifty thousand ) on the ground of no fault liability
keeping further right to file petition under section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. According to the said petition, deceased M.L
Karmakar sustained multiple injuries in a road accident which
occurred on the Main Road, Ranchi, on 25.2.1988 due to dash
caused by the offending vehicle bearing registration no. BPV 9019.
The driver of the offending vehicle as well as the insurer were made
opposite parties no.1 and 2 in the said petition. During pendency of
3
the said petition, on 4.1.2000, respondent claimants 1 to 4 filed
another petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant
of compensation to the extent of rupees five lakhs. It was contended
that the deceased was an employee of the Heavy Engineering
Corporation (HEC) Ltd. and at the time of his death, he was aged
about 33 years.
After service of notice, the opposite parties,
appeared and filed show cause. The appellant insurance company
also filed additional show cause against the petition filed under
section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and further filed detailed show
cause against the petition filed by the claimants under section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act.
3 Learned Tribunal after considering the pleadings, framed
issues, admitted documents and recorded the evidence produced
and adduced on behalf of both sides and finally passed the impugned
award as indicated above and hence this appeal.
4 The insurance company / appellant has assailed the
impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground that in the
occurrence dated 25.2.1988 for which Hindpiri PS case No.
129/1988 (corresponding to GR No 548 of 1988) was registered, the
person known as Mantulal Karmakar ( deceased) did not sustain any
injury and the name of the deceased is completely unknown to the
said case record. As a matter of fact, in the said accident, one Ashok
Poddar had sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the offending vehicle no. BPV 9019. Information was
lodged by Havildar Surendra Pd Singh, BMP 11, then deputed near
4
Urdu Library, Main Rad, Ranchi. Brief contents of the said FIR is that
at about 6. a.m. on 25. 2.1988, trekker bearing registration no. BPV
9019 was coming from the side of Doranda and being driven rashly
and negligently and when the vehicle reached near Urdu Library,
Main Road, Ranchi, it caused dash to a pedestrian due to which he
sustained fracture injury on his leg and fell down. The driver lost
control over the vehicle which got turned turtle after being dashed
with the divider. The injured disclosed his name as Ashok Poddar
and he was removed to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi, with the help of
passers-by. On the basis of the information lodged by said Havildar
S.P. Singh, Hindpirhi PS case No. 129 of 1988 dated 25.2.1988
against diver of the trekker was registered. After due investigation,
charge sheet no. 29 of 1988 dated 12.5.1988 against driver Harendra
Yadav was submitted.
That neither the deceased nor any of the claimants
had ever appeared before the investigating officer in connection with
said Hindpirhi P. S Case No. 129 of 1988 between the date of
institution of the case and till date of submission of the charge sheet.
The deceased Mantulal Karmakar is alien to the said case record.
No post mortem on the dead body of M.L. Karmakar was ever held,
either in connection with said Hindpirhi P.S. case No. 129/1988, or in
connection with any other case. There was no injury report to show
that in the said accident, deceased M.L.Karmakar had sustained
injuries on his person. According to annexure 3, claimant Benu
Karmakar, claiming herself to be wife of deceased M.L. Karmakar,
had lodged information, typed in Hindi, before the officer in charge
5
Hindpirhi P.S. Ranchi on 2.3.1988 disclosing therein that on
27.2.1988, her husband Mantulal Karmakar sustained injuries in Road accident at Main Road, Ranchi, and the offending vehicle was BPV No. 9019. M. L. Karmakar was removed to Sadar Hospital and after treatment, he was sent back home, situated at Kishoreganj. On 1.3.1988 when the condition of said M.L. Karmakar became precarious, he was removed to Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan, Ranchi, where he died at about 10-11 p.m. ( Annexure 3). The claimant Benu Karmakar also informed the Superintendent of Police, Rural Ranchi, on 27.12.2000. In that information too, date of occurrence indicated is 27.2.1988. The appellant has also annexed one hand-written letter signed by all the claimants which also disclosed the date of incident as 27.2.1988.
5 That the claimants had furnished a certificate given by the officer in charge, Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Ranchi, to the effect that Mantulal Karmakar, son of Jit Lal Karmakar, sustained injuries in road accident for which Hindpirhi P.S. Case No. 129 of 1988 dated 25.2.1988 under section 279/337 IPC was registered. It is contended that the officer in charge, Sukhdeo Nagar P.S had no right to issue the death certificate and that too, in a case which fell under the jurisdiction of Hindpirhi P.S. ( annexure 4). By referring to annexure 4/1, it was pointed out that M.L. Karmakar, son of Jitu Karmakar, was brought to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi, for his treatment on 27.2.1988 and the entry was made vide No. 2167/(17). 6 The respondent claimants had furnished death certificate issued by Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan according to which 6 M.L. Karmakar died on 1.3.1988. The date of admission in the said hospital (Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan ) is not indicated therein. 7 The appellant by referring to aforesaid documents and evidence on record has submitted that the learned tribunal has committed gross error in relying on the death certificate issued by the police officer who is admittedly not authorized to do so. No post mortem report was brought on record. FIR and the charge sheet relating to Hindpirhi P.S. case no. 129 of 1988 did not disclose death of any person in the said incident. As a matter of fact, the report and the FIR indicates that one Ashok Poddar had sustained injuries and he was examined by the police and he was cited as witness in the charge sheet too.
8 It is incorrect to say that the appellant insurance company had admitted that Mantu Lal Karmakar died due to injuries sustained by him in road accident which took place on 25.2.1988 for which Hindpirhi P.S. case No. 129 of 1988 was registered. The appellant had challenged all the facts in issue and furnished documents and adduced evidence in support of the show cause filed against the petition filed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that it is an admitted case of the respondents that the incident took place in the year 1988, but the claim application under section 140 Motor Vehicles Act was filed after eight years, in the year 1996, and the petition under section 166 was filed in the year 2000 and no explanation has been given against such delay in filing the petitions. The statement of the claimants 7 made in the application stood uncorroborated either by the FIR, or by the charge sheet, or by the injury report, or the post mortem report and, thus, the findings of the learned tribunal is based on a fact which is not available on the record. The impugned judgment and award is highly erroneous, illegal and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
9 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent claimants has vehemently opposed the argument and referring to the additional show cause filed by the appellant in the learned court below, submitted that the appellant had admitted the incident and therefore they cannot raise the same issue in this appeal at this stage. The evidence of eye witness Lakshman Vishwakarma is very clear that M.L. Karmakar sustained injuries on 25.2.1988 in road accident near Urdu Library, Main Road, Ranchi and the number of the offending vehicle was BPV 9019. The Death Certificate issued by Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan clearly shows that Mantulal Karmakar sustained injury in road accident three days ago and he died on 1.3.1988. The officer in charge, Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. had also given certificate in respect of death of M.L. Karmakar which occurred in road accident for which Hindpirhi P.S. Case No. 129 of 1988 was registered. Copy of the G. R. Register also indicates that two information were lodged for the accident which took place at the Main Road, Near Urdu Library,Ranchi. It was further contended that Benu Karmakar is a Bangla speaking lady and she is having little knowledge of Hindi and therefore she does not know what information was recorded by the police and she had simply put her 8 signature at the foot of the petition filed before the officer in charge, Hindpirhi P.S. and Rural S.P. Ranchi.
10 Learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant insurance company is liable to pay entire compensation amount and the liability is not restricted only to the extent of rupees fifty thousand as per the Old Motor Vehicles Act. The learned tribunal has rightly held the appellant liable to pay compensation amount and there is no merit in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. 11 I have gone through the memo of appeal annexures, impugned judgment and award and the lower court record and the evidence and documents adduced from both sides. Before adverting findings on the issues involved in this appeal, for the sake of clarity and convenience, I would like to refer the documents which were either not in dispute, or admitted by the parties concerned.
(i) The claimants had filed claim applications before the Tribunal under section 140 as well as under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stating therein that the death of deceased Mantulal Karmakar occurred in a road accident which took place on the Main Road, near Urdu Library, Ranchi, on 25.2.1988 for which Hindpirhi PS case No. 129 of 1988 dated 25.2.1988 under section 279/337 IPC against unknown driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. BPV 9019 was registered.
(ii) Certified copy of the charge sheet No. 29 dated
12.5.1988 filed in connection with Hindpirhi PS case No. 129 of 1988 according to which charge sheet was submitted against accused Driver Harendra Yadav under sections 279/338 IPC (Ext 2). On the 9 basis of said charge sheet, cognizance by the learned CJM under sections 279/338 was taken on 23.5.1988 (Ext 1).
(iii) Death certificate ((Ext 3) of Mantulal Karmakar issued by the officer in charge Sukhdeo Nagar PS Ranchi ;
(iv) Income certificate of Mantulal Karmakar (Ext 4).
(v) Copy of the FIR of Hindpirhi PS Case No 129 of 1988 dated 25.2.1988 ( G.R No. 548 of 1988) ( Annexure 1 to the memo of appeal ).
(vi) Copy of the information with regard to the incident which took place on 27.2.1988 for which the claimant, Benu Karmakar, had lodged information before the officer in charge Hindpirhi P.S on 2.3.1988 ( annexure 3 series);
(vii) Copy of the information (annexure 3 series) sent by the claimant Benu Karmakar, widow of Mantulal Karmakar to the Rural S.P. Ranchi, with regard to the incident dated 27.2.1988 in which Mantulal Karmakar sustained injuries .
(viii) Hand written letter disclosing the incident which took place on 27.2.1988 in which Mantulal Karmakar sustained injuries due to dash caused to him by the vehicle bearing registration no. BPV 1920 near Urdu Library, Main Road, Ranchi, signed by all the claimants.
(ix) The entries made in the Register maintained by Sadar Hospital indicating that Mantulal Karmakar, son of Jitlal Karmakar was brought to Sadar Hospital in an injured condition on 27.2.1988 at about 8.00 a.m. and treated between 8 to 12 p.m. ( annexure 4/1 ).
1012 The claimants/respondents have placed reliance on para 1 of the additional show cause filed by the appellant insurance company and vehemently submitted that it was "admission" on their part that Mantulal Karmakar met with accident on 25.2.1988 and died on 1.3.1988; the appellant cannot raise the same issue before this Hon'ble Court in this appeal. To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what is pleading, what is fact in issue, what are the relevant facts and then, what would be the admission.
13 Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages as under :
"1. Pleading : "Pleading" shall mean plaint or written statement :
2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence - (1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.
(2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so fr as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph.
(3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words."
14 Statements made in the pleadings are required to be proved by evidence, oral or documentary. It is settled principle of law that no party shall be allowed to adduce evidence beyond the pleadings, but in special case with the leave of the Court, the party can. Statements appearing in the pleadings constitute or indicate 11 facts in issue involved and that is to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their statements relating to the facts in issue.
Here, in the instant case, pleadings of the claimants is that the deceased Mantulal Karmakar sustained injures in a road accident which occurred on 25.2.1988 at Main Road near Urdu Library, Ranchi, within the jurisdiction of Hindpirhi Police Station for which Hindpirhi P.S case No. 129 of 1988 was registered, but the statement made in the application filed by the claimants did not find support from the FIR relating to Hindpirh PS case no. 129 of 1988; rather, the contention made in this FIR indicates that in the said incident, one Ashok Poddar had sustained injuries on his leg and the case was registered under section 279/337 IPC on the basis of the information lodged by Havildar S.P. Singh BMP 11. In that very case, charge sheet under sections 279/338 IPC was submitted on the basis of which cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistate was taken. Therefore, the case record relating to Hindpirhi PS case no 129 of 1988 ( GR No. 548 of 1988) did not disclose that any person named as Mantulal Karmakar had ever sustained any injury in that very occurrence. Again I would like to say that the statements made in the pleadings relating to the fact in issue may be proved either by oral or documentary evidence. Oral evidence is that which is either witnessed personally by the witness or information with regard to facts in issue derived to him from any other person who has or had knowledge about the incident. If the statements made in the pleadings relating to the fact in issue or the relevant facts, are relied 12 upon the document(s), that document has to be proved in accordance with law and then only the said document shall be read in evidence for arriving at the just conclusion/decision in the matter. Here, in the instant case, the claimants have relied upon the FIR lodged on 25.2.1988 vide Hindpirhi PS case No. 129 of 1988; charge sheet submitted and the cognizance taken. But these documents do not support that Mantulal Karmakar sustained injures in the said incident.
The claimants have also pleaded that after Mantulal Karmakar sustained injuries, he was removed to Sadar Hospital for his treatment on 25.2.1988, but no medical report has been brought on record to prove this fact. Contrary to that, the appellants have brought on record annexure 4/1 which shows that Mantulal Karmakar was brought to Sadar Hospital on 27.2.1988 for his treatment which was given to him between 8.00 to 12.00 noon vide Entry No. 2167 (17).
15. The claimants have also tried to prove facts in issue by adducing oral evidence and the evidence of Lakshman Vishwakarma PW2 who, according to them, is an eye witness, has been referred. According to statement ( para 1) of the said witness, on 25.2.1988 at about 11.00 a. m, while he was going towards Daily Market and crossing the road, he had seen a trekker coming from Hatia side which was being driven rashly and negligently and caused dash to Mantulal Karmakar as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. The offending vehicle was restrained by the Police. Mantulal Karmakar was removed to Sadar Hospital by this witness with the 13 help of passers-by. In the hospital, statement of Mantulal Karmakar was recorded by the Police and thereafter he was dropped at his residence by the police. In his cross examination, he says that he could learn the number of the offending vehicle in the hospital and knew the name of Mantulal Karmakar only on the date of incident.
Oral evidence of PW 2 does not find support from the medical evidence of Sadar Hospital, Ranchi, nor the FIR lodged in connection with Hindpirhi Ps case No. 129 of 1988. Therefore, the statement that Mantulal Karmakar sustained injuries in the road accident on 25.2.1988 leading to his death is not substantiated either by oral or documentary evidence.
16 The claimant respondents have further pleaded that Mantulal Karmakar died on 1.3.1988 due to injuries caused to him in road accident which occurred on 25.2.1988, but they have failed to bring on record any post mortem report in support of such contention. In order to prove that Mantulal Karmakar died on 1.3.1988 due to injuries caused to him in the road accident which occurred on 25.2.1988, death certificate issued by the officer in charge, Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. (Ex.3) was filed. I fail to understand as to under what provision of law or authority, the officer in charge of Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. had issued death certificate. He did not come forward to support his contention. It is needless to say that the occurrence took place within Hindpirhi Police Station, and the certificate was issued by Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Again, it is reiterated that in connection with Hindpirhi PS case No 129 of 1988, charge sheet under section 279/338 IPC was submitted and cognizance was 14 taken and, therefore, till submission of the charge sheet, death of any person, what to say of Mantulal Karmakar, was completely unknown and the trial proceeded against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 279/338 IPC. In view of the discussion made above, the claimants have failed to bring on record that in the incident which took place on 25.2.1988, Mantulal Karmakar sustained injuries which resulted in his death. 17 The claimants have filed medical certificate obtained from Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan, Ranchi, which indicates that on 1.3.1988 Mantulal Karmakar was admitted in the hospital and he died at 8.00 p.m. This medical certificate has not been exhibited and the statement of the person who had brought the patient indicates that it was a case of a road accident which had occurred three days before.
18 Now coming to the annexure 3 series and annexure 4/1 to the present appeal. These documents indicate that the claimants have disclosed the date of incident as 27.2.1988 and they have not stated any where in the document under annexure 3 series that Mantulal Karmakar sustained injuris on 25.2.1988 in road accident. Annexure 4/1, the certificate issued by sadar hospital supports that Mantulal Karmakar sustained injuries on 27.2.1988 and he was brought to Sadar Hospital for treatment. It is necessary to mention here that the claimants/respondents have not challenged these documents i.e. annexure 3 series and 4/1; rather, it was argued that the wife of the deceased is a Bangla speaking lady and she has little knowledge of Hindi. The document under annexure 3 15 series bears signature of the claimant Benu Karmakar in Hindi and the hand written letter bears signatures of all the claimants in English. They have not denied the authenticity of these documents at the time of their argument.
19 In view of the evidence and the documents referred to above, it is apparent that the claimants have failed to bring on record that Mantulal Karmakar sustained injures in road accident which occurred near Urdu Library, Main Road, Ranchi, on 25.2.1988, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration no. BPV 9019 for which Hindpirhi P.S Case No. 129 of 1988 under sections 279/337 was registered. So, this part of the pleadings of the claimants stood unsubstantiated either by oral evidence, or documentary evidence.
20 The claimants/respondents have referred para 1 of the additional show cause filed by the appellant and submitted that it was admission on the part of the appellant insurance company and therefore this fact was not required to be proved. Before adverting as to what is admission, the show cause filed by the appellant insurance company against the petition filed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as detailed show cause filed against the petition filed under section 166 of the MV Act are required to be dealt with. In both the show cause, the appellant insurance company has vehemently challenged that no person as Mantulal Karmakar had sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 25.2.1988 near the Urdu Library, Main Road, Ranchi and the name of Mantulal Karmakar is completely alien to the Hindpirh P.S. case No. 129 of 16 1988. No post mortem report was filed. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be quite acceptable that the appellant had challenged the fact in issue and the relevant facts which the respondent claimants have evidently failed to prove. There are two detailed show cause dated 27.11.2002 and 4.9.2004 in which the appellant has challenged the averments made by the claimants in their pleadings. To bring it on record that the date of incident alleged by the claimants shall be governed by the old Motor Vehicles Act, [ section 95(2)] and the liability on the insurance company, if fastened, shall be restricted to the extent of rupees fifty thousand only, an additional show cause was filed in which in paragraph 1 it was stated that Mantulal Karmakar met with accident on 25.2.1988 and died on 1.3.1988, and that contention made in para 1 cannot be considered as admission. 21 Order XII of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with 'Admissions'. No provision of Order XII of the Code of Civil Procedure was ever adhered to in the present case, nor the claimants have taken any step to do that.
In the preceding paragraphs, I have indicated, what is 'pleading', and what statement the pleadings would contain and such statement must indicate the fact in issue or the relevant facts and to prove such fact in issue, how evidence is to be adduced so that the issues may be decided in any enquiry, proceeding or trial. The parties must give positive statement in their pleadings relating to facts in issue or the relevant facts required to be proved by them by adducing evidence. The statement of claimant in the instant case is 17 that Mantulal Karmakar sustained injuries in road accident which occurred on 25.2.1988 near Urdu Library, Main Road, Ranchi, due to rash and negligent diving of vehicle for which Hindpirhi P.S. case no. 129 of 1988 was registered, stood unsupported by the documents relied upon by them ( i.e. FIR, charge sheet, order of cognizance by the CJM). In such conflicting circumstances, if the claimants had been relying or banking upon the statement given by appellant insurance company in the additional show cause, they should have taken recourse to the provision of Order XII of the C.P.C but they did not do so. In the circumstances indicated above, it would never be safe to rely on such whimsical statement given in the pleading by the other side, and no conclusive finding exclusively relying on such admission could be safe to be given. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants respondents in this context cannot be accepted. 22 I have elaborately discussed almost all the issues involved and the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, but up till now, it is not observed how carelessly, negligently and in a slipshod manner, the learned tribunal had decided the issues involved. The alleged incident, as per the claimants, took place in the month of February,1988, but the application for grant of compensation under section 140 MV Act was filed in the year 1996, after lapse of eight years, and that too, without assigning any reasons for such delay. The petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was filed in the year 2000 and that too, without any explanation as to why it was not filed along with the petition filed under section 18 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants have presented the documents like charge sheet, cognizance order relating to Hindpirhi case no. 129 of 1988.The name of the deceased Mantulal Karmakar was completely unknown to those records and no person in the said incident died, but the learned tribunal has passed the impugned judgment by keeping his eyes shut and without application of mind. Why and how the learned tribunal has relied on the death certificate issued by a police officer having no jurisdiction and no authority to issue such certificate is a big question on the knowledge and efficiency of such judicial officer.
23 In view of the discussions made above, I have no hesitation to observe that the judgment and award impugned is perverse, based on incorrect facts and documents and is fit to be set aside.
24 In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated 2.8.2006 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in claim case no. 72 of 1996 is hereby set aside.
( D.N. Upadhyay, J ) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated : 19/2/2014 Ambastha/ NAFR