New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Basanti Devi And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mrs. Sunita Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned A.C. to Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 (claimants), Md. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no.3 (owner of the vehicle) and Md Ayub Ansari, learned counsel for respondent no.4 (driver of the vehicle).

This appeal has been filed challenging validity and legality of the award dated 29.01.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-I cum MACT Judge, Giridih in Title M.V. Suit No.15 of 2011, whereby the learned tribunal has been pleased to allow the application in favour of the claimants and the insurance company was directed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment by account payee cheque in the joint name of claimant nos. 1 and 2, being the mother and father of the deceased, within two months from the date of that order, failing which, the claimants shall be entitled to realize the amount by due process of law.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim application was filed stating therein that on 03.01.2007, the deceased Yogendra Yadav @ Ladoo Kumar was standing in front of his house, a tempo bearing no. JH-11C-7328 was coming with a high speed turned turtle on account of negligent of the driver that hit the deceased who died on spot. She further submits that the ground was also taken the driver was driving the vehicle carelessly and negligently and it was overturn due to negligent driving of the driver. She submits that the insurance company has appeared before the learned tribunal and filed written statement. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the road permit of the said tempo was not produced before the learned tribunal and in spite of that, the learned tribunal has been pleased to award the aforesaid amount. She submits that in view of that, this Court may reverse the said award.

On the other hand, Md. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no.3 (owner of the vehicle) submits that the learned tribunal has framed issue nos. IV and V with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that two issues have been answered holding that there is no breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He further submits that in this background, no interference is required by this Court.

Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) submits that meager amount has been awarded by the learned tribunal and the claimants are entitled for more amount.

Md. Ayub, learned counsel for respondent no.4 (driver of the vehicle) submits that the driver was having valid driving license.

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the award and finds that the learned tribunal has framed issue no. IV with regard to violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and issue nos. IV and V was decided by the learned tribunal holding that the insurance of the offending vehicle was not in dispute and the driving license of the driver was also on the record. In view of the finding of the learned tribunal, the onus lies upon the appellant to prove its case by way of adducing the documents and evidence and the insurance company has not laid any evidence on that point before the learned tribunal.

Further, Rule 70 of Jharkhand Motor Rules, 2000 speaks as under:

“70. Application of sub-section (1) of Section 66 .- The provisions of subsection (1) of Section 66 shall apply to any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver.”

Looking into the said Rule, it transpires that the vehicle in which the sitting capacity is more than nine persons, then only permit is required in view of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court finds that admittedly, due to accident the deceased succumbed to the injury and the learned tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- along with interest as has been noted hereinabove. The insurance company has already paid the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants in view of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out.

The statutory amount deposited before this Court to the tune of Rs.25,000/- shall be transmitted to the learned tribunal where the matter is pending for execution. The insurance company shall deposit the amount in terms of the award along with interest, as has been awarded and, thereafter, the insurance company is at liberty to deduct the sum of Rs.25,000/, which is directed to be transmitted to the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal after depositing the said amount by the insurance company, will handover the same to the claimants along with Rs.25,000/-which the tribunal shall receive in terms of this order.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, is also dismissed.