Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dhanpati Kisku & Others

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the award dated

18.03.2015 in MACT Case No.94/2013 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur, whereby the claimants

namely, Dhanpati Kisku and Luis Murmu have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.35,39,152/- along with simple interest @ 7% per annum

from the date of institution of the claim application.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in compliance of order dated 05.07.2018, Rs.10,00,000/- has already been disbursed to the

wife and mother of the deceased to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that driver of the offending vehicle, Manoj Kumar Das is a set up person and said, Manoj Kumar Das

has been shown driver of the offending vehicle in large number of motor accident claim case, which was instituted against unknown in the district of

Pakur vide MACT Claim Case No.88/2013, 71/2012 and 53/2014.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective licence to drive heavy motor

vehicle as alleged in the case.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that for assisting this Court, she requires one week time.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that wrong multiplier has been used in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the

case of Sarla Verma Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 para-42, as the deceased died at the age of 28 years, but

wrongly the multiplier 18 has been used, which ought to have been 17.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that under the conventional head Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid contrary to the judgment passed

by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 paragraph-59.8.

Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that quantum may also be reduced.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall has submitted that interest has been paid on the lower side i.e 7% per annum

instead of 7.5% per annum from the date of institution contrary to the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P.

State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC).

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that FIR has been lodged against unknown, subsequently the Police investigated the matter and the

charge-sheet was submitted. Manoj Kumar Das being the driver may have committed a number of accident, but the claim application cannot be

dismissed on the ground that same driver has committing motor accident on several times. If a driver is committing accident every year, the

registration authority may consider for cancellation of his licence, but the same cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim application as a set up case.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of the stand taken by Maheshwar Sah, owner of the offending vehicle bearing

registration No. JH18B-0170 that his vehicle has met with accident then nothing remains for the appellant to agitate the same and as such, the ground

taken by the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the driver has licence for both i.e. light vehicle as well as heavy good vehicle, the

offending vehicle bearing registration No. JH18B-0170 is a light motor vehicle. Section 2 (16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defined heavy goods

vehicle as under:

heavy goods vehicle"" means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which,

exceeds 12,000 kilograms;

Learned counsel for the respondents has thus submitted that in absence of any evidence adduced by Insurance Company, the ground taken by the

Insurance Company is not available before this Court, as such, this Court may dismiss the appeal, as the accident took place on 06.01.2012 in which

Nikodem Marandi @ Nikodem Marandi @ Nikunj Marandi lost his life and the poor sufferer are wife and mother. Though the claim application has

been decided in the year 2015 and since then the matter is pending before this Court.

Considering the rival submission of the parties, by way of last indulgence, put up this case on 23.02.2021.