IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.190 of 2009
Against the Judgment dated 27.11.2008 and Award dated
10.12.2008 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge-cum- Motor
Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Gaya in M.A.C. Case
No.133 of 2008 /47 of 2001.
======================================================
United India Insurance Co. Ltd, through its Divisional Manager, A.N.Road,
Murarpur, Gaya. Opp.Party no.1 … …. Appellant
Versus
1. Shobha Devi W/o Late Ramshila Paswan
2. Jai Ram Paswan S/o Late Ramlal Paswan
3. Smt. Bachia Devi wife of Sri Jai Ram Paswan
4. Supria Kumari
5. Indrajeet Kumar
6. Soni Kumari
7. Moni Kumari
8. Amarjeet Kumar
Four to eight are minor sons and daughters of Late Ramshila
Paswan under guardianship of their mother Shobha Devi, all
residents of Village- Lakhanpur, P.S. – Moffasil, District-
Gaya —- Applicants———Respondents
9. Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh S/O Sri Suraj Dev Singh R/O Village-
Rasalpur , P.O. Rasalpur, P.S. Manpur ( Moffasil), District-Gaya
Opp.Party no.2 …. …. Respondents
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Appellant/s : S/Sri Ram Chandra Lal Das
Ashok Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Sri Arun Kumar Sinha
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
Rakesh Kumar,J. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of
the Moter Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “M.V.Act”)
against the Judgment dated 27.11.2008 and Award dated 10.12.2008
passed by the learned 1 st Addl.District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle
Accident Claim Tribunal Gaya (hereinafter referred to as the “Claim
Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No.133 of 2008/ 47 of 2001 dated 27 th
November, 2008. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned
2
Claim Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants
and directed the appellant to pay the total compensation amount of Rs.
5,84,280/-. The Claim Tribunal directed to deduct Rs.50,000/- from the
compensation amount, which was paid to the claimants as interim
compensation under Section 140 of the M.V.Act.
2. Short fact of the case is that on 02.04.2001, while the
husband of Respondent no.1 and father of other claimants was
returning along with other co-villagers after offering Puja ( worship)
from Kaleshwari temple under the district of Chatra on a mini bus
having Registration no.BR-2B/0369 and when the said mini bus
reached near village- Akbarpur under Dobhi Police Station , due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver the mini bus turned turtle by the side
of the road and in the said accident Ramshila Paswan and other
passengers received severe injuries. While Ramshila Paswan was being
treated at Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College and Hospital,
Gaya, he succumbed to the injuries. In connection with the said
accident, an F.I.R. vide Sherghati ( Dobhi) P.S. Case No.67 of 2001 for
the offences under Sections 279,337,338, 304(A) of the Indian Penal
Code was lodged against the driver of the said bus on the fardbeyan of
one co-villager. Subsequently, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles
Act, a Claim Case vide M.A. C. Case No.133 of 2008/ 47/2001 was
filed claiming compensation. In support of Claim Case, four witnesses
were examined and the claimant produced number of documentary
evidences, which were got exhibited. In the claim case, salary
certificate of the deceased was got exhibited as Ext.1, F.I.R. of
Sherghati ( Dobhi) P.S. Case no.67 of 2001 was exhibited as Ext.2,
3
Postmortem report of the deceased Ramshila Paswan was exhibited as
Ext.3 and photo copy of Insurance Policy cover issued by the
appellant/ United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was exhibited as Ext.4.
During the evidence, the witnesses fully supported the claimants case.
Even during the cross-examination, nothing could be extracted from the
witnesses to create any doubt on the claim case. It is evident from the
record that the appellant/ United Indian Insurance Company Ltd.,
though appeared before the court below, did not adduce either any
documentary or oral evidence to controvert the claimants case. The
Claim Tribunal during the trial framed number of issues, which are as
follows:
(i) Is the claim case as framed maintainable?
(ii) Have the applicants got valid cause of action for this
claim case?
(iii) Whether Ramshila Paswan died in a motor vehicle
accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the said offending mini bus bearing
registration No. BR-2B/0369?
(iv) Whether the owner of the said offending mini bus has
violated the terms and condition of insurance policy
cover by getting his vehicle driven by a person
having no valid driving licence at the relevant time
of accident ?
(v) Are the applicants entitled to get compensation and
if so to what amount and from whom?
(vi) Are the applicants entitled to any other relief?
3. After examining the evidences and materials available
on record, the issues framed were decided in favour of the claimants.
The deceased was a peon in Civil Courts, Gaya and as per Ext.1, salary
4
certificate, net salary of the deceased was Rs.4236/- per month.
4. At the time of accident, the deceased was about 35
years old and, as such, multiplier 17 was taken into account as per
second schedule of the M.V.Act. The annual income of the deceased
was assessed as Rs.50, 760/-, which came to Rs. 33,840/- per annum
after deducting 1/3rd amount as his personal expenditure, which was
considered as the dependency of the claimants. After multiply the said
amount, the total compensation amount was considered as
Rs.5,75,280/-. Respondent no.1 being widow of the deceased was given
Rs.5000/- as loss of consortium, Rs.2000/- as funeral expenses and
Rs.2000/- as loss of estate. Accordingly, the total compensation was
directed to be paid to the tune of Rs.5, 84,288/-. During the trial, in
view of Section 140 of the M.V.Act , Rs.50,000/- was paid to the
claimant as interim compensation and, as such, the Claim Tribunal
directed for deducting Rs.50,000/- from the total compensation
amount and, as such, the appellant/United India Insurance Company
Ltd. was directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,84,284/- along
with interest @ 8 % per annum on the compensation amount from the
date of filing of the claim case till the date of payment.
5. Aggrieved with the Judgment and Award, the United
India Insurance Company Ltd. had preferred the present appeal.
6. Sri Ram Chandra Lal Das, learned counsel for the
appellant has argued that it is true that in the case after accident, an
F.I.R. was lodged, but the claimants, while filing the claim petition, had
not brought on record copy of chargesheet after completion of the
investigation. It was argued that in absence of chargesheet, the learned
5
Claim Tribunal was not legally entitled to award compensation against
the Insurance Company. It was further pleaded that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not impleaded as party in the claim case nor the
owner of the vehicle had appeared before the Claim Tribunal and in
absence of owner of the vehicle, the claim case was not required to be
allowed against the insurer.
7. Sri Arun Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondent no.1/ claimant, while opposing the appeal and
controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant, has argued that whatever documents were required to be filed
under Rule 226 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992, the claimants
had already brought before the court below. He has specifically
submitted that the certified copy of the F.I.R., copy of the Insurance
Policy, Postmortem Report and Salary Certificate of the deceased were
filed and got exhibited. Besides, documentary evidence, the witnesses,
who were travelling along with the deceased, were examined as
witnesses in support of the claim case and all the witnesses have
consistently supported the claimants’ case. The Insurance Policy of the
offending vehicle was sufficient to establish that at the time of accident,
the offending vehicle was insured by the appellant/ United India
Insurance Company Ltd. Moreover, no oral or documentary evidence
was brought on record by the appellant/United India Insurance
Company Ltd. to controvert the claimants’ case. It was further
submitted that only with a view to delay the payment of compensation
amount as per Judgment and Award of the Claim Tribunal, the present
appeal was preferred by the appellant/ United Indian Insurance
6
Company Ltd. having no merit in the appeal and, as such, the appeal is
liable to be rejected.
8. Besides hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I
have also perused the materials available on record. After going
through the record, it is evident that sufficient materials were brought
on record and the learned Claim Tribunal after examining and
appreciating the evidences on record has rightly passed the Judgment
and Award. So far as submission advanced by Sri Ram Chandra Lal
Das, learned counsel for the appellant that copy of chargesheet was not
brought on record is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that in view
of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was not
mandatorily required to bring on record the copy of chargehseet and
only in absence of copy of chargesheet, the impugned Judgment and
Award cannot be questioned, particularly in view of the evidences,
which have been brought on record by the claimants. After going
through the materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that while
allowing the claim petition, the learned Claim Tribunal has committed
no error and Judgment and Award requires no interference.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. However, in view
of the facts and circumstances, no cost is being imposed.
( Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated: the 16th September,2011
Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R.
