Jharkhand High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Parwati Devi on 6 February, 2020
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M. A. No. 691 of 2018
..........
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ............. Appellant.
Versus
1. Parwati Devi, wife of Late Wakil Ganjhu
2. Bhukhali Devi, wife of Late Fagu Ganjhu
3. Vikash Kumar, son of Late Wakil Ganjhu
4. Manika Kumari, daughter of Late Wakil Ganjhu
5. Akash Kumar, son of Late Wakil Ganjhu All residing at Village-Nawatanr, P.O. & P.S.- Simaria, District- Chatra
6. Nirmala Devi, wife of R. R. Sahu, residing at Nirmala Bhawan, Khalui Math Bardmkan (Wrongly mentioned) West Bengal 713101 Address as per the Policy- Nirmala Bhawan, Khaluibil Math, P.O., P.S & District Burdwan-713101(Owner of Truck) ......... Respondents.
With M. A. No. 660 of 2018 ..........
Parwati Devi & Ors. ............. Appellants
Versus
Nirmala Devi & Anr. ......... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
.........
For the Appellant(s) :Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate. (In M.A. No.691 of 2018)
For the Appellant(s) Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
(In M.A. No.660 of 2018)
For the Respondent No.1 -5 :Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
(In M.A. No.691 of 2018)
For the Respondent No.2 :Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
(In M.A. No.660 of 2018)
For the Respondent No.6 : Dr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate
(In M.A. No.691 of 2018)
...........
04/06.02.2020. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
Appellant- United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred in M.A. No.691 of 2018 against the award dated 14.08.2018 in M.A.C. No.16 of 2013 by learned District Judge-IV-cum-Motor Accident Claim tribunal, Chatra, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,07,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of registration of the case within 30 days of the award failing which penal interest @ 8% shall be charged till realization of the awarded amount. M.A. No.660 of 2018 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the said award.
In both the instant appeals, learned counsel, Dr. P.C. Sinha appeared on -2- behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle, Nirmala Devi. Learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No.691 of 2018- United India Insurance Company Limited has assailed the impugned award on the first ground that the driver- Parwej Alam has no valid and effective licence on the date of accident i.e. 18.02.2013, which is apparent from Exhibit-7 which shows that the validity of the driving licence for the period 19.09.2015 to 25.07.2030. The driver of the offending vehicle has not produced driving licence for the date of accident dated 18.02.2013, as such, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy for which insured is liable to pay, but not the Insurance Company.
Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company has further submitted that under the conventional head the learned Tribunal has paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/- as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at paragraph 59.8.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has put a penal interest, which warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Insurance Company has preferred Miscellaneous Appeal against the award under Section 173 of the M.V. Act and the statutory period to prefer an appeal is 90 days, as such, the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to ask or direct the Insurance Company to satisfy the award within 30 days, failing which, there shall be penal interest, as such, the impugned award may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellants (in M.A. No.660 of 2018) has preferred appeal for enhancement of the award on two counts:-
(i) That though the deceased was self-employed working as a mason aged about 40 years, but the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospect of the deceased though deceased was entitled for the same as 40% in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at paragraph 59.4.
Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants has assailed the impugned award on the second ground that the deceased- Wakil Ganjhu was aged about 40 years and doing work of mason, but the learned Tribunal has assessed his income of Rs.4,500/- which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian & Ors., reported in -3- 2019(4) TAC 724(SC).
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has further submitted that though the learned Tribunal has awarded penal interest, but on the other hand, the learned Tribunal has awarded less interest contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC whereby interest ought to have been passed at the prevalent rate of interest of the bank on the date of award or quantified as 7.5% from the date of filing of the application till realization of the amount. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that this Court may consider the entire aspect of the matter, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Others vs. Divisional Manager & Another, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 in para 8 and compute compensation in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle, Dr. P.C. Sinha has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly held in para 12 of the impugned award that at the time of occurrence driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence, as such, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is fit to be dismissed. The owner has no responsibility nor any positive evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. In support thereof a photocopy of driving licence of driver of offending vehicle, Md. Parwez Alam has been produced before the Court, whereby the date of issuance has been shown as 26.07.2010 valid for non-transport vehicle from 26.07.2010 to 25.07.2030 and for transport vehicle from 27.10.2015 to 26.10.2018. The truck bearing registration no.WB-41D-1463 comes under transport vehicle, as such, it would be proper to verify from the Lower Court Records regarding the validity of the licence with respect to offending vehicle.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, let the Lower Court Records be called for.
In the meantime, for a substantial justice and to minimize litigation, this Court grants leave to counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle to file counter affidavit along with all the relevant documents required and filed in the court below. The same may be filed before this Court by 13.02.2020 after serving a coy of the same upon the counsel for the other side. The counsel for Insurance Company shall verify the same by 04.03.2020.
Let the case be listed on 06.03.2020.
-4-In the meantime, learned counsel for the appellants in M.A. No.660 of 2018 is directed to serve copy of memo of appeal upon the counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company as well as learned counsel, Dr. P.C. Sinha appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) sandeep/R.S.